You seem to have grossly misunderstood the situation: HardOCP ran a well-researched and edited peice that demonstrated a variety of grevious failures in Infinium's progress towards their console including but not limited to listing times when Infinium missed deadlines, blatantly lied about what resources they had, blatantly lied about what backing they had, etc.
Infinium, meanwhile, hired perhaps one of the most incompetant lawyers I've ever heard of: their lawyers have presented paperwork including spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, clearly innapropriate egotism (i.e. emotion isn't supposed to appear in any legal documents except for Judge's decisions), etc.
is actually quite good, but certainly a bit less approachable than parts of either this or Greene's previous book. Granted, the string-theory sections are the most difficult of all three books, but I highly recomend picking up any or all of them.
But here's the question: were they categorizing this as an overdose or simply over-ingestion? I dont have PDR, so I'm honestly asking, but this is what I mean: an overdose would mean that the chemical involved (i.e. THC and the other carbinoids that cause the 'high') caused one or more organ failures (possibly including the brain), resulting in death. Overingestion, on the other hand, would cause organ failure (again, possibly including the brain) for reasons unrelated to the chemical properties of marijuana (think of how drinking enough water can literally make your hyperhydrocephalic, i.e. swell your brain until death, or how drinking enough milk can cause an allergic reaction to the lactose inducing seizures then death).
I'm not sure, but I thought I remembered being told that this released some toxic gas in the process of being dissolved. Can anyone back me up here? (or refute me?)
Its never happened, as far as the medical lit. I know about is concerned. It has a self-limiting factor: you'll get so high that you'll pass out or be unable to move well before you're able to consume enough THC to cause any sort of fatal overdose effect (excluding, of course, asphixiating because you pass out on your face or something along those lines).
"I suppose that if you arbitrarily come up with a rule saying there can be only one person with a given set of recollections at a given religious destination for souls, then you can declare as a consequence that the soul is moved, not destroyed, or you'll have two John Does in heaven (or hell) (or purgatory) (or whatever you believe in), arguing over which one is the real one."
Actually, it'd be far simpler than this: the instant you create a duplicate, the two [the original+the copy] start having divergent memories, due to their cartesian seperation (i.e. their seperate sensory experience). After any small amount of time, this would rapidly become signficant.
Far more difficult are the following two questions: (1) the original matter seems to be irrelevant (since the receiving transporter seems able to fill in gaps in the matter stream according to the data, such as the episode that had Riker duplicated by the transporter), so it seems that you are meaningfully killing the original body in the process of creating the second body, so is that murder? (2) If you duplicate someone in this manner, is their soul copied, or is a new soul made? Put another way, if your soul was terribly damned beforehand, is the duplicate similarly damned at that point?
However, you're missing the point. This project is solely concerned with the appearance of the word in a science fiction context. The term 'avatar' in the sense of a virtual representation of a user in a virtual world is certainly derivative of its theological purpose (and strikingly accurate, frankly) but it is also certainly a new stage in its evolution.
In terms of artistic design, its far more difficult to design cohesive homes with rounded corners than you'd think. At least in my experience with other artist friends, including at least a few who hope to be architects, it seems that we human's dont really like having no clear seperation between walls.
The other concern for me, along with your window comment, is that a significant number of conventions in room design, i.e. any picture frames, flat-screens, bookshelves, etc. are all flat-backed. You'd have to custom match your curved components to match your curved walls...
I think, when you get down to it, this will be less about new, esoteric designs, and more about being able to cheaply produce good-quality housing without the same structural overhead.
This is off-topic, dont bother modding me down for it, I just want to comment on Symbolic's sig:
Slashdot must not ever have editing of posts for one simple reason, that it would remove accountability (and be psychotic if it allowed mod'ed posts to be edited). Imagine trying to understand a nested message board like this, with comments about parent posts, etc., when people repeatedly edited their posts? It would become impossible to understand what was going on...
Worse, what if your post was modded to 5, then you edited it to be innappropriate? The entire point of moderation - to bring good ideas to the forfront - would be ruined.
Actually, forget BBS. Porn was a driving force in every single growing means of mass-communication. One of the first things printed in mass-form after the Bible was a series of pornographic images and texts; organized phone-sex programs drove pay-phone systems (i.e. 1-900 or 976 numbers); Playboy TV was one of the first premium channels, not to mention those pay-per-view channels.
Face it: sex is the driving force behind our [and every] species, so its no surprise that almost all of our cultural structures seem to largely depend on it somehow.
Re:Yes but what about bluetooth?
on
The Universal Card
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
One obvious solution (which admittedly isn't mentioned in the article, and thus shouldn't be assumed to be true) is that the device could/may refuse to hold cards for more than one name.
The average person (i.e. almost everyone) has precisely zero reason to carry someone else's credit card (and if they had them, many stores wouldn't accept one that wasn't yours since they're not supposed to do so). This device may simply make the valid assumption that all of your cards should have the same name (which is stored magnetically in the card, if I'm not mistaken).
This would, at least, prevent stealing more than one person's card.
As much as you're joking, its actually true. In most if not all cases, a lawyer cannot sue on his or her own unless he or she is specifically a valid plaintiff. Thats not to remove all responsibility - a good lawyer should refuse cases without merit, ideally - but it is best to realize that they're either direct employees or contract employees acting on someone elses behalf.
Just speaking from experience with corporate lawyers, what often happens is that a corporate leader (i.e. CEO, etc.) is upset by some event (i.e. the article), and they demand that Legal take some action. The lawyer, not wanting to be disbarred for malpractice, points out that they have no legal claim, but to avoid beign fired they then fire off a letter that simply states what the higher-ups say, with a small note about a law suit. I'd bet solid money no law suit ever solidifies.
The writers at Hard are pretty fucking funny though: they've done an excellent job of reforming their statements to accord with the demands, even while making them more acidic.
I feel the need to mention that (a) anecdotal evidence like this is prima facie absurd since by definition it is a non-representative sample, and (b) i, my father, sister and several of my friends all have iPods, and none have had any problems so for whatever specious value you attribute to your anecdote, my anecdote must even it out.
Tee hee hee! "Veneer of civilisation"?? What's that? War is the key sign of civilization! No primitive culture has ever waged or even comprehended warfare. The idea of two groups of armed men going to fight each other just baffles them. Primitives are too selfish to act like a soldier. Without the sublimation of the individual to the group that is the hallmark of civilization, men simply will not risk their own lives for abstract future gain.
I have to disagree here with you for several reasons. First, you'll never find an anthropologist who will use the word "primitive" as a nominative: the word 'primitive' for anthropologists is strictly an adjective relating one level of advancement in one area to another, since its entirely insulting to any individual or people to dub them 'primitives'.
Second, you'd better believe there was warface before "civilization". Notably, the beginnings of the black slave trade were in the ongoing wars between tribes in Africa: the gross majority of blacks sold into slavery from Africa in the first decades of the Trade would have otherwise been slaves to their victors. Similarly, the Maori (to reference New Zealand, since you brought up it's neighbor) waged regular war, tribally, against each other often resulting in annihilation of a given tribe.
A lot of the dinosaurs spent a lot of time in water, where the water helped support them.
The sauropods I listed spent none of their time except drinking under water, based on current paleantological discussions. The smaller end (i.e. the 45-90 ton ones) are believed to occasionally get onto their hind legs to reach higher branches.
See, my first thought is that it'd be perfect for portable music devices, as opposed to gaming. This would better enable innocuous music devices (i.e. that which could be hidden in the lining of a jacket/glove/etc.) whereas gaming devices are going to be held in your hands no matter what (until we shift to full-on wearable computers, i.e. xybernaut).
They're adamantium. Adamantine is a real english word that means essentially to have the qualities of a diamond (i.e. its strength, in particular) while adamantium is a fictional alloy that is extremely rare in Marvel comics, and apparently extremely difficult to handle (only Weapon X has reliably manipiulated it besides Magneto), although its trailed by Carbonium (i.e. the coils that Omega Red has) which is easier to find/manipulate but less...adamantine.
And throwing tanks? The only problem with that is that the barrel and turret wouldn't withstand the stress of the Hulk picking it up and swinging it around.
Actually, the problem is that given the Hulk's size, its impossible for him to rotate something of the mass of the tank around him. The force required to lift that tank would actually lift him up above it. In other words, the torque would rotate him, as opposed to lifting the tank off the ground.
Actually, it doesn't make giants impossible, but rather giants that move like the hulk does (i.e. his absurd leaping).
Consider the following animals: (info at http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/giants/giants.html)
The Bruhathkayosaurus was 144ft long, weighing 175-220 tons. The Seismosaurus was 148ft long, while its relative the Supersaurus was 131ft long (and also in the Diplodocid family) with 40-50 tons of bodywieght. The Argentinasaurus was only 35m long, but weighted 80-100 tons, while teh Paralititan was 114ft, at 65-80 tons.
Okay, see how giants are possible, but its just that their movement must change?
Of course, to be properly anal, one should mention that its not appropriate at all to ask someone if they can do something. The proper means of request is "Would you " or "Please ", i.e. "Would you pass the salt" or "Please pass the salt". Thats the source of the old joke that gets passed around elementary schools:
Student: "Teacher, can I go to the bathroom?"
Teacher: "I certainly hope so! You may go to the bathroom, and find out!"
Quite the asshole of a teacher, to be sure, but spot-on nonetheless.
Incidentally, this isn't a 'feild', nor would pragmatics accurately describe it. Its poor grammar. Being pragmatic in your attempts to comprehend the bad grammar of other speakers of your language would lead you to figure out the probable meaning, but its not a 'field'.
Of course, you shouldn't be angry at anyone for a mistake like this. Then again, you shouldn't be pleased that they speak improperly, either.
This is deep into just surreal joke territory, but I'm reminded of a recent Sealab 2021 episode wherein Doctor Quinn removed the brains of first Capt. Murphy, then the rest of the crew, only to replace their brains with small mice who controlled the bodies via tiny mouse-sized controls (where did the brains go, you ask? Into robots...).
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to have grossly misunderstood the situation: HardOCP ran a well-researched and edited peice that demonstrated a variety of grevious failures in Infinium's progress towards their console including but not limited to listing times when Infinium missed deadlines, blatantly lied about what resources they had, blatantly lied about what backing they had, etc.
Infinium, meanwhile, hired perhaps one of the most incompetant lawyers I've ever heard of: their lawyers have presented paperwork including spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, clearly innapropriate egotism (i.e. emotion isn't supposed to appear in any legal documents except for Judge's decisions), etc.
- A Breif History of Time
is actually quite good, but certainly a bit less approachable than parts of either this or Greene's previous book. Granted, the string-theory sections are the most difficult of all three books, but I highly recomend picking up any or all of them.But here's the question: were they categorizing this as an overdose or simply over-ingestion? I dont have PDR, so I'm honestly asking, but this is what I mean: an overdose would mean that the chemical involved (i.e. THC and the other carbinoids that cause the 'high') caused one or more organ failures (possibly including the brain), resulting in death. Overingestion, on the other hand, would cause organ failure (again, possibly including the brain) for reasons unrelated to the chemical properties of marijuana (think of how drinking enough water can literally make your hyperhydrocephalic, i.e. swell your brain until death, or how drinking enough milk can cause an allergic reaction to the lactose inducing seizures then death).
I'm not sure, but I thought I remembered being told that this released some toxic gas in the process of being dissolved. Can anyone back me up here? (or refute me?)
Its never happened, as far as the medical lit. I know about is concerned. It has a self-limiting factor: you'll get so high that you'll pass out or be unable to move well before you're able to consume enough THC to cause any sort of fatal overdose effect (excluding, of course, asphixiating because you pass out on your face or something along those lines).
"I suppose that if you arbitrarily come up with a rule saying there can be only one person with a given set of recollections at a given religious destination for souls, then you can declare as a consequence that the soul is moved, not destroyed, or you'll have two John Does in heaven (or hell) (or purgatory) (or whatever you believe in), arguing over which one is the real one."
Actually, it'd be far simpler than this: the instant you create a duplicate, the two [the original+the copy] start having divergent memories, due to their cartesian seperation (i.e. their seperate sensory experience). After any small amount of time, this would rapidly become signficant.
Far more difficult are the following two questions: (1) the original matter seems to be irrelevant (since the receiving transporter seems able to fill in gaps in the matter stream according to the data, such as the episode that had Riker duplicated by the transporter), so it seems that you are meaningfully killing the original body in the process of creating the second body, so is that murder? (2) If you duplicate someone in this manner, is their soul copied, or is a new soul made? Put another way, if your soul was terribly damned beforehand, is the duplicate similarly damned at that point?
However, you're missing the point. This project is solely concerned with the appearance of the word in a science fiction context. The term 'avatar' in the sense of a virtual representation of a user in a virtual world is certainly derivative of its theological purpose (and strikingly accurate, frankly) but it is also certainly a new stage in its evolution.
I dub him Bumblebee...
In terms of artistic design, its far more difficult to design cohesive homes with rounded corners than you'd think. At least in my experience with other artist friends, including at least a few who hope to be architects, it seems that we human's dont really like having no clear seperation between walls.
The other concern for me, along with your window comment, is that a significant number of conventions in room design, i.e. any picture frames, flat-screens, bookshelves, etc. are all flat-backed. You'd have to custom match your curved components to match your curved walls...
I think, when you get down to it, this will be less about new, esoteric designs, and more about being able to cheaply produce good-quality housing without the same structural overhead.
This is off-topic, dont bother modding me down for it, I just want to comment on Symbolic's sig:
Slashdot must not ever have editing of posts for one simple reason, that it would remove accountability (and be psychotic if it allowed mod'ed posts to be edited). Imagine trying to understand a nested message board like this, with comments about parent posts, etc., when people repeatedly edited their posts? It would become impossible to understand what was going on...
Worse, what if your post was modded to 5, then you edited it to be innappropriate? The entire point of moderation - to bring good ideas to the forfront - would be ruined.
Actually, forget BBS. Porn was a driving force in every single growing means of mass-communication. One of the first things printed in mass-form after the Bible was a series of pornographic images and texts; organized phone-sex programs drove pay-phone systems (i.e. 1-900 or 976 numbers); Playboy TV was one of the first premium channels, not to mention those pay-per-view channels.
Face it: sex is the driving force behind our [and every] species, so its no surprise that almost all of our cultural structures seem to largely depend on it somehow.
One obvious solution (which admittedly isn't mentioned in the article, and thus shouldn't be assumed to be true) is that the device could/may refuse to hold cards for more than one name.
The average person (i.e. almost everyone) has precisely zero reason to carry someone else's credit card (and if they had them, many stores wouldn't accept one that wasn't yours since they're not supposed to do so). This device may simply make the valid assumption that all of your cards should have the same name (which is stored magnetically in the card, if I'm not mistaken).
This would, at least, prevent stealing more than one person's card.
To actually correct the above two posts, its: "To Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."
As much as you're joking, its actually true. In most if not all cases, a lawyer cannot sue on his or her own unless he or she is specifically a valid plaintiff. Thats not to remove all responsibility - a good lawyer should refuse cases without merit, ideally - but it is best to realize that they're either direct employees or contract employees acting on someone elses behalf.
Just speaking from experience with corporate lawyers, what often happens is that a corporate leader (i.e. CEO, etc.) is upset by some event (i.e. the article), and they demand that Legal take some action. The lawyer, not wanting to be disbarred for malpractice, points out that they have no legal claim, but to avoid beign fired they then fire off a letter that simply states what the higher-ups say, with a small note about a law suit. I'd bet solid money no law suit ever solidifies.
The writers at Hard are pretty fucking funny though: they've done an excellent job of reforming their statements to accord with the demands, even while making them more acidic.
I feel the need to mention that (a) anecdotal evidence like this is prima facie absurd since by definition it is a non-representative sample, and (b) i, my father, sister and several of my friends all have iPods, and none have had any problems so for whatever specious value you attribute to your anecdote, my anecdote must even it out.
I have to disagree here with you for several reasons. First, you'll never find an anthropologist who will use the word "primitive" as a nominative: the word 'primitive' for anthropologists is strictly an adjective relating one level of advancement in one area to another, since its entirely insulting to any individual or people to dub them 'primitives'.
Second, you'd better believe there was warface before "civilization". Notably, the beginnings of the black slave trade were in the ongoing wars between tribes in Africa: the gross majority of blacks sold into slavery from Africa in the first decades of the Trade would have otherwise been slaves to their victors. Similarly, the Maori (to reference New Zealand, since you brought up it's neighbor) waged regular war, tribally, against each other often resulting in annihilation of a given tribe.
A lot of the dinosaurs spent a lot of time in water, where the water helped support them.
The sauropods I listed spent none of their time except drinking under water, based on current paleantological discussions. The smaller end (i.e. the 45-90 ton ones) are believed to occasionally get onto their hind legs to reach higher branches.
See, my first thought is that it'd be perfect for portable music devices, as opposed to gaming. This would better enable innocuous music devices (i.e. that which could be hidden in the lining of a jacket/glove/etc.) whereas gaming devices are going to be held in your hands no matter what (until we shift to full-on wearable computers, i.e. xybernaut).
They're adamantium. Adamantine is a real english word that means essentially to have the qualities of a diamond (i.e. its strength, in particular) while adamantium is a fictional alloy that is extremely rare in Marvel comics, and apparently extremely difficult to handle (only Weapon X has reliably manipiulated it besides Magneto), although its trailed by Carbonium (i.e. the coils that Omega Red has) which is easier to find/manipulate but less ...adamantine.
Actually, the problem is that given the Hulk's size, its impossible for him to rotate something of the mass of the tank around him. The force required to lift that tank would actually lift him up above it. In other words, the torque would rotate him, as opposed to lifting the tank off the ground.
Actually, it doesn't make giants impossible, but rather giants that move like the hulk does (i.e. his absurd leaping).
s .html)
Consider the following animals: (info at http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/giants/giant
The Bruhathkayosaurus was 144ft long, weighing 175-220 tons. The Seismosaurus was 148ft long, while its relative the Supersaurus was 131ft long (and also in the Diplodocid family) with 40-50 tons of bodywieght. The Argentinasaurus was only 35m long, but weighted 80-100 tons, while teh Paralititan was 114ft, at 65-80 tons.
Okay, see how giants are possible, but its just that their movement must change?
Um, FYI the quote you included has nothing to do with what the parent was claiming was 'pragmatics'.
Of course, to be properly anal, one should mention that its not appropriate at all to ask someone if they can do something. The proper means of request is "Would you " or "Please ", i.e. "Would you pass the salt" or "Please pass the salt". Thats the source of the old joke that gets passed around elementary schools:
Student: "Teacher, can I go to the bathroom?" Teacher: "I certainly hope so! You may go to the bathroom, and find out!"
Quite the asshole of a teacher, to be sure, but spot-on nonetheless.
Incidentally, this isn't a 'feild', nor would pragmatics accurately describe it. Its poor grammar. Being pragmatic in your attempts to comprehend the bad grammar of other speakers of your language would lead you to figure out the probable meaning, but its not a 'field'.
Of course, you shouldn't be angry at anyone for a mistake like this. Then again, you shouldn't be pleased that they speak improperly, either.
This is deep into just surreal joke territory, but I'm reminded of a recent Sealab 2021 episode wherein Doctor Quinn removed the brains of first Capt. Murphy, then the rest of the crew, only to replace their brains with small mice who controlled the bodies via tiny mouse-sized controls (where did the brains go, you ask? Into robots...).