1) Article history, as others here have pointed out, shows that this article has contained that paragraph since, at the very least, 5 months ago, while the TechFragments article was published yesterday.
2) Just like I wouldn't cite my own work on Wikipedia in a research paper without noting that I was the author - well, I wouldn't use any work from Wikipedia in a term paper. But if I did, I would be sure to note whoever the authors were, if it was me or someone else, to prevent any confusion. You don't just take a sentence from another publication without giving proper attribution.
'The idea behind counting cards in blackjack is that a deck of cards with a high proportion of high cards (ten-valued cards and aces) to low cards is good for the player, while the reverse (a deck with a high proportion of low cards to high cards) is good for the dealer.[...]
'The idea behind counting cards in blackjack is that a deck of cards with a high proportion of high cards (ten-valued cards and aces) to low cards is good for the player, while the reverse (a deck with a high proportion of low cards to high cards) is good for the dealer.'
C'mon TechFragments. If you copy a Wikipedia article, which you shouldn't be doing anyway, you need to give a link back to the article you copied from and give proper attribution to its authors.
Sure, FOSS and Linux are making Microsoft into a large, proprietary desert island that becomes less competitive by the year, but since they are losing their profits to MacOS X and not Linux, but we seem to be giving them too much credit by attributing their behavior to rational reasons. Shouldn't we be considering option C? Isn't it possible that Microsoft might not know what the fuck it is doing? They are so scared of a software model to which they don't possess the lock and key that they're missing what's right in front of their face: a proprietary competitor that can chew away at their market share just by making products that people like using more, and that are (arguably, of course) superior.
What's comical is not that you're so paranoid that you'll only use Federal Reserve notes to complete purchases. Well, that's pretty amusing, but what's even more amusing is that your sig contains a link to a site dedicated to ending the Federal Reserve.
Really? You don't see any use in having a computer that can read handwriting perfectly(document conversion)? That can recognize faces(security)? That can semantically organize conceptual content(organizing the web?) That can problem-solve intuitively(anything)? That can plan ahead? That can understand our natural language? If we successfully run a simulation of a human brain on a computer(presumably we would have a go at this after succeeding with the cat's brain), it would solve all of these problems. And having a computer that can do these things automatically frees up our brains for a lot of new things.
I've been following this campaign since January. Not once did I hear about 'mandatory' public service. It was always voluntary, in exchange for the $4,000 grant. If it was mandatory, you wouldn't need to incentivize it with a grant.
I said it in another thread, but the Thermal Physics we used was called, appropriately, 'Thermal Physics,' by Ralph Baierlein. I'm not sure if it's a standard text that most universities used, but it seemed good enough that it could be.
Despite what you may have read in a chain email, there's no call for mandatory public service.
Obama has called for voluntary public service. Voluntary. If you choose to perform public service, the government helps you out attending a public university. I think that's a good idea, for one.
On the other hand, I'm already sorry for the following:
"In 2002, Shuttleworth became the first South African in Space by being launched aboard a Russian Soyuz capsule to the International Space Station. However, most observers agreed that he was American space-shuttle-worthy. Snicker."
Your level of scientific rigor is admirable and to be expected, but I hope we agree that an interesting story that doesn't provide cause to investigate further is something quite different from an interesting story that does.
As for my conclusion, I'd think you'd need to know a little bit more about the particulars of this to say that "It's premature to reach that conclusion". There is no simpler explanation for why I'm getting better other than because of this treatment. If it were the placebo effect then the dozens of other treatments I've used would have worked. Brain scans and neurological testing have measured changes between before and after I began this treatment and provided objective evidence that I am getting better while on it. The change began in exactly the period you would expect the change to begin, knowing of how this treatment works when treating other diseases. And I would - even without the studies done to - encourage doctors to try this treatment, as they are, because of all the success stories I've heard from people who are, like me, recovering while on it, and the scarcity of studied treatments to try on this particular illness. These stories are still at the level of anecdotal evidence, but they are slightly more than interesting stories.
There is a gulf between what is reasonably suspected to be true and what is known to be true scientifically. But that doesn't mean that what we reasonably suspect to be true can't be very useful to us. Eventually with enough anecdotal evidence studies will be prompted and once and for all. But in the meantime why let people suffer from a disease that has ruined people's lives when there is a treatment (that is clinically safe) that has worked for many people, but may not have been investigated enough for the scientific community to reach concensus on it?
Yes, something isn't scientifically 'true' until it's been studied in that fashion, but don't dismiss the value of anecdotal evidence to guide scientific discovery. In this case, I'd say you have slightly more than an interesting story. You have at the very least cause to investigate further.
I have a neurological illness that I am currently recovering from. The treatment that is working for me (after trying many that didn't) is something that I'm using off-label - it has not been studied with even the basic level of scientific rigor you have laid out in treating this particular illness. However, since I am getting better, in an objectively measurable fashion, I consider it true that the treatment is effective.
Try to think of fun facts to keep them entertained--don't say petabyte, figure out how many times around the world one string of text will go that a petabyte can store.
And when little Johnny Smart-Ass asks 'What font-size?' don't reply 'STFU' or politely ask the teacher to escort him to the principal's office.
Seriously. If someone can look at live videotape of two jet airliners crashing into a skyscaper, then sit and watch those skyscrapers collapse, and then question the connection between Event A and Event B, there is something seriously wrong with how he is processing information.
Er...sorry, I meant to say what I thought was implied by your post, not explicitly stated, and not forming the basis of the entire thread.
In any case, my point still stands about those who might believe that the two candidates in this election are equally untrustworthy or otherwise the same.
Yes...please do vote Libertarian. Encourage all your otherwise McCain voting friends to do so too. Please.
This whole thread seems to be premised on the fallacy that "There is no difference between the two major candidates."
This is false and has been demonstrably false since the first time I heard it, in 2000. If in that election the other candidate was inaugurated we would not have invaded Iraq, we would have an equitable tax code, we wouldn't have a disappearing middle class, we wouldn't have a ballooning debt destined to be paid down by our grandchildren, poor people might have access to health care, our regulatory structures may have been able to stop the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and possibly, just possibly, 9/11 may not have happened. But forget all that. Since it's easier for me to declare that the two candidates are the same rather than inform myself and investigate their actual positions, I'll do that!
I suspect someone with the Slashdot handle "Vote McCain in 2008!" isn't the best person from which Seems hardly the person from whom to seek a reasonable and balanced opinion about Obama's positions and McCain's technological prowess. And the fact that CmdrTaco would post something with such an obvious McCain bias, which is obviously a ham-handed attempt to counter the widespread and correct perception that the McCain campaign - and the candidate himself - are way behind the curve when it comes to leveraging the Internet to raise money and spread their message, seriously makes me wonder about Mr. Taco's editorial judgment.
Polls are showing that Obama can win, and is already winning in a GE matchup against McCain. Once the Democratic fully coalesces around Obama and he continues his massive voter registration drive, expect this to be not only a victory for Obama, but a pretty generous victory - we're talking up to 316 electoral votes, 46 beyond the 270 needed to secure the Presidency.
This country is continuing to reject the Republican brand and conservatives need to take this time to re-think what they stand for and how best to serve the country. Their party is broken, their ideology is corrupt, and their governance has been recklessly irresponsible. The American people aren't buying it anymore.
I'm not voting for Obama because I'm inspired by him(though I am). I'm voting for him because I think the Republican party has lost its soul and when given its opportunity to lead has driven our country to a precipice that's going to require a preternaturally gifted leader to steer us away from. Obama is that preternaturally gifted leader. In 4 short years he has gone from being a lowly State Senator in Illinois to the Democratic nominee for President of the United States . You don't do that without having some very powerful intellectual gifts. He engineered and managed a campaign of change which defeated the Former First Lady of the United States and her husband, the former President. That's proof enough of his fitness to lead.
As to your specific claims that Republicans won't vote for Obama, a lot of Republicans have already voted for Obama. And in case you haven't noticed there are a lot fewer Republicans in this country than there were 8 years ago, so even if they weren't going to vote for him, we wouldn't need them anyway.
Yeah but what is understanding?
When we understand someone's utterance our brains are engaging in a complex, physical, mechanical (yes, algorithmic) process involving a few different areas of our brains, and yet we are said to 'understand' the words spoken.
It seems to me if we had a computer with a sufficiently complex algorithm we could accomplish 'understanding' in the same sense.
This might be a good time to start coming up with working(we've already had plenty of theoretical) groundrules as to 1) what exactly constitutes understanding? 2) if a computer has this type of understanding, when do we shut it off?
Because it looks like the labels on the Self-Destruct button were written with a Sharpie.
I just hope the Space Shuttle itself isn't built with stuff I buy at Staples.
Slashdot Mirror
'Their wish to buy Red Hat is akin to the wish to put a flowing river in a bucket.'
This sentence would be better expressed in Haiku form.
1) Article history, as others here have pointed out, shows that this article has contained that paragraph since, at the very least, 5 months ago, while the TechFragments article was published yesterday.
2) Just like I wouldn't cite my own work on Wikipedia in a research paper without noting that I was the author - well, I wouldn't use any work from Wikipedia in a term paper. But if I did, I would be sure to note whoever the authors were, if it was me or someone else, to prevent any confusion. You don't just take a sentence from another publication without giving proper attribution.
Last paragraph:
'The idea behind counting cards in blackjack is that a deck of cards with a high proportion of high cards (ten-valued cards and aces) to low cards is good for the player, while the reverse (a deck with a high proportion of low cards to high cards) is good for the dealer.[...]
Wikipedia article on Card Counting:
'The idea behind counting cards in blackjack is that a deck of cards with a high proportion of high cards (ten-valued cards and aces) to low cards is good for the player, while the reverse (a deck with a high proportion of low cards to high cards) is good for the dealer.'
C'mon TechFragments. If you copy a Wikipedia article, which you shouldn't be doing anyway, you need to give a link back to the article you copied from and give proper attribution to its authors.
Sure, FOSS and Linux are making Microsoft into a large, proprietary desert island that becomes less competitive by the year, but since they are losing their profits to MacOS X and not Linux, but we seem to be giving them too much credit by attributing their behavior to rational reasons. Shouldn't we be considering option C? Isn't it possible that Microsoft might not know what the fuck it is doing? They are so scared of a software model to which they don't possess the lock and key that they're missing what's right in front of their face: a proprietary competitor that can chew away at their market share just by making products that people like using more, and that are (arguably, of course) superior.
Question: is that a brain transplant for them or a body transplant for you?
What's comical is not that you're so paranoid that you'll only use Federal Reserve notes to complete purchases. Well, that's pretty amusing, but what's even more amusing is that your sig contains a link to a site dedicated to ending the Federal Reserve.
Really? You don't see any use in having a computer that can read handwriting perfectly(document conversion)? That can recognize faces(security)? That can semantically organize conceptual content(organizing the web?) That can problem-solve intuitively(anything)? That can plan ahead? That can understand our natural language? If we successfully run a simulation of a human brain on a computer(presumably we would have a go at this after succeeding with the cat's brain), it would solve all of these problems. And having a computer that can do these things automatically frees up our brains for a lot of new things.
Link please?
I've been following this campaign since January. Not once did I hear about 'mandatory' public service. It was always voluntary, in exchange for the $4,000 grant. If it was mandatory, you wouldn't need to incentivize it with a grant.
I said it in another thread, but the Thermal Physics we used was called, appropriately, 'Thermal Physics,' by Ralph Baierlein. I'm not sure if it's a standard text that most universities used, but it seemed good enough that it could be.
All good books.
For Thermal Physics:
We used 'Thermal Physics' by Ralph Baierlein.
Despite what you may have read in a chain email, there's no call for mandatory public service.
Obama has called for voluntary public service. Voluntary. If you choose to perform public service, the government helps you out attending a public university. I think that's a good idea, for one.
No real pun to apologize for there.
On the other hand, I'm already sorry for the following:
"In 2002, Shuttleworth became the first South African in Space by being launched aboard a Russian Soyuz capsule to the International Space Station. However, most observers agreed that he was American space-shuttle-worthy. Snicker."
Your level of scientific rigor is admirable and to be expected, but I hope we agree that an interesting story that doesn't provide cause to investigate further is something quite different from an interesting story that does.
As for my conclusion, I'd think you'd need to know a little bit more about the particulars of this to say that "It's premature to reach that conclusion". There is no simpler explanation for why I'm getting better other than because of this treatment. If it were the placebo effect then the dozens of other treatments I've used would have worked. Brain scans and neurological testing have measured changes between before and after I began this treatment and provided objective evidence that I am getting better while on it. The change began in exactly the period you would expect the change to begin, knowing of how this treatment works when treating other diseases. And I would - even without the studies done to - encourage doctors to try this treatment, as they are, because of all the success stories I've heard from people who are, like me, recovering while on it, and the scarcity of studied treatments to try on this particular illness. These stories are still at the level of anecdotal evidence, but they are slightly more than interesting stories.
There is a gulf between what is reasonably suspected to be true and what is known to be true scientifically. But that doesn't mean that what we reasonably suspect to be true can't be very useful to us. Eventually with enough anecdotal evidence studies will be prompted and once and for all. But in the meantime why let people suffer from a disease that has ruined people's lives when there is a treatment (that is clinically safe) that has worked for many people, but may not have been investigated enough for the scientific community to reach concensus on it?
Yes, something isn't scientifically 'true' until it's been studied in that fashion, but don't dismiss the value of anecdotal evidence to guide scientific discovery. In this case, I'd say you have slightly more than an interesting story. You have at the very least cause to investigate further.
I have a neurological illness that I am currently recovering from. The treatment that is working for me (after trying many that didn't) is something that I'm using off-label - it has not been studied with even the basic level of scientific rigor you have laid out in treating this particular illness. However, since I am getting better, in an objectively measurable fashion, I consider it true that the treatment is effective.
And when little Johnny Smart-Ass asks 'What font-size?' don't reply 'STFU' or politely ask the teacher to escort him to the principal's office.
Seriously. If someone can look at live videotape of two jet airliners crashing into a skyscaper, then sit and watch those skyscrapers collapse, and then question the connection between Event A and Event B, there is something seriously wrong with how he is processing information.
Er...sorry, I meant to say what I thought was implied by your post, not explicitly stated, and not forming the basis of the entire thread.
In any case, my point still stands about those who might believe that the two candidates in this election are equally untrustworthy or otherwise the same.
Yes...please do vote Libertarian. Encourage all your otherwise McCain voting friends to do so too. Please.
This whole thread seems to be premised on the fallacy that "There is no difference between the two major candidates."
This is false and has been demonstrably false since the first time I heard it, in 2000. If in that election the other candidate was inaugurated we would not have invaded Iraq, we would have an equitable tax code, we wouldn't have a disappearing middle class, we wouldn't have a ballooning debt destined to be paid down by our grandchildren, poor people might have access to health care, our regulatory structures may have been able to stop the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and possibly, just possibly, 9/11 may not have happened. But forget all that. Since it's easier for me to declare that the two candidates are the same rather than inform myself and investigate their actual positions, I'll do that!
I suspect someone with the Slashdot handle "Vote McCain in 2008!" isn't the best person from which Seems hardly the person from whom to seek a reasonable and balanced opinion about Obama's positions and McCain's technological prowess. And the fact that CmdrTaco would post something with such an obvious McCain bias, which is obviously a ham-handed attempt to counter the widespread and correct perception that the McCain campaign - and the candidate himself - are way behind the curve when it comes to leveraging the Internet to raise money and spread their message, seriously makes me wonder about Mr. Taco's editorial judgment.
This is a 100% scam. I can't believe I ever bought headphones from them - they were way overpriced for the quality they gave.
Polls are showing that Obama can win, and is already winning in a GE matchup against McCain. Once the Democratic fully coalesces around Obama and he continues his massive voter registration drive, expect this to be not only a victory for Obama, but a pretty generous victory - we're talking up to 316 electoral votes, 46 beyond the 270 needed to secure the Presidency. This country is continuing to reject the Republican brand and conservatives need to take this time to re-think what they stand for and how best to serve the country. Their party is broken, their ideology is corrupt, and their governance has been recklessly irresponsible. The American people aren't buying it anymore.
I'm not voting for Obama because I'm inspired by him(though I am). I'm voting for him because I think the Republican party has lost its soul and when given its opportunity to lead has driven our country to a precipice that's going to require a preternaturally gifted leader to steer us away from. Obama is that preternaturally gifted leader. In 4 short years he has gone from being a lowly State Senator in Illinois to the Democratic nominee for President of the United States . You don't do that without having some very powerful intellectual gifts. He engineered and managed a campaign of change which defeated the Former First Lady of the United States and her husband, the former President. That's proof enough of his fitness to lead. As to your specific claims that Republicans won't vote for Obama, a lot of Republicans have already voted for Obama. And in case you haven't noticed there are a lot fewer Republicans in this country than there were 8 years ago, so even if they weren't going to vote for him, we wouldn't need them anyway.
Yeah but what is understanding? When we understand someone's utterance our brains are engaging in a complex, physical, mechanical (yes, algorithmic) process involving a few different areas of our brains, and yet we are said to 'understand' the words spoken. It seems to me if we had a computer with a sufficiently complex algorithm we could accomplish 'understanding' in the same sense. This might be a good time to start coming up with working(we've already had plenty of theoretical) groundrules as to 1) what exactly constitutes understanding? 2) if a computer has this type of understanding, when do we shut it off?
I'm not sure if the parent was joking. Judging by the amount of pirates I've seen lately, he may have a point about the plank length.
Because it looks like the labels on the Self-Destruct button were written with a Sharpie. I just hope the Space Shuttle itself isn't built with stuff I buy at Staples.