2) This fact is completely unknown to most everybody who "believes" (as you put it) that global warming is a crisis.
No, it's known by a great many. It's already been studied, and accounted for, by climatologists. It's discussed frequently with regards to global warming, because increasing solar output combined with increased greenhouse gases makes the problem even worse.
Your "unbiased" "scientific" mindset causes you to be ready to jump down the throats of anyone who voices a contrary opinion.
Why yes we're ready to jump down the throats of peoples whose opinions are conceived in abject ignorance, but who insist on presenting their uneducated ignorant opinions as though it is not only equal to, but superior, to the opinions of those who have done actual science in the field. These are not the same type of opinion. Stop pretending that having this explained to you is somehow a form of censorship or a sign of just how unreasonable everyone else is.
The second article in the story claims that the Big Red Spot is "roughly as wide as the entire Earth", which of course is wrong it's about 3 times the diameter of earth, as the first and correct article claims.
So their problem wasn't reading too fast, it was clicking the wrong link.;)
First of all, the Soviets had their own state religion: The cult of personality devoted to their glorious leader. His statues, his pictures, his words were revered.
The state was officially atheist. If "cults of personality" count, then plenty of alleged atheists are really religious, which given your explosion of anger in the next sentence I think you would take issue with.
Secondly, how the HELL do you "practice non-religion"? Talk about your weak, weak attempt of lumping "not Christian" in along with "soviet totalitarian". You should be ashamed
Marshal as much deliberately stupid and useless pedantry in an effort to fail to understand as you want. The fact is, atheists murdered millions of Christians due to their beliefs.
And if you weren't being deliberately stupid, maybe you would have gotten the point which is that of course the "lumping" of all atheists with Soviet totalitarians is invalid, just as lumping in all Christians with the Inquisitors is invalid. In fact, the Soviets had more in common with the Inquisition than Soviets do with Atheists or the Inquisition with Christianity in the present.
If thats not coercian of the worst kind I don't know what is. And it was a part of the roman catholic church - a supposed religion.
Uh-huh. And I suppose then it would be fair to judge a modern day practitioners of non-religion (i.e. atheism) by the actions of Soviet Russia, and the millions of Christians slain?
Surely there are no differences of time and place. Clearly I must fear to reveal that I am a Christian lest I be sent to a Siberian gulag to work or freeze myself to death, just as you today must feverishly espouse your faith in Jesus lest you be tortured to death. Strange that they could both be true at the same time, though...
You have a right to sell your copy, but effectively you can't because it's been tied to your hardware.
It seems to me that the courts have not typically ruled against "effective" rights violations*. There's no law that says Microsoft can't require your PC to phone home to verify it's using the same hardware as before. So while this decision could be repeated if Microsoft tried to stop you from reselling Vista and you went to court over it, it would probably not have any effect on that sold copy of Vista being useless because Microsoft wouldn't activate it.
* See Eldridge v Ashcroft, "retroactive finite copyright extensions, repeated infinitely" doesn't violate principle of copyrights being finite.
That was part of the charm of the original trilogy, and something that largely seemed to be absent from the prequels - Lucas' idea of the 'used future'. Ships were ruddy and worn. Decks were scratched. Hulls were scored with carbon from blasters and battle. Even uniforms were marked up.
And lest we forget, the much revered Millennium Falcon was basically just a souped-up freighter used for smuggling, and an old, cantankerous one at that. This gave the ship personality.
Something which was mostly lacking from the prequels. Not only are the ships and worlds crisp and clean and completely forgettable, so are the character's personalities flat. It's not entirely surprising since it mostly focuses on bureaucrats and the sage and stoic Jedi. But even Samuel Jackson couldn't bring any significant amount of personality to the movies.
The characters are the same way. Where are the grungy smugglers and seedy characters which gave Star Wars its intrigue and appeal? Sure, there were some obvious attempts, but they just didn't come close.
The only one I can remember was that really cheesy "death stick" dealer.
The next President of the United States is likely to be Barack Obama, born 1961. Star Wars was released in 1977- when he was 16. Odds are good he saw it then. Who can know what kind of effect the movie had on him as an impressionable teen? When that 3:00 A.M. phone call comes to tell him that the terrorists/Iranians/aliens have attacked America, how do you know he won't be imagining himself in an Incom X-wing, spoilers locked in attack position, with a trusty R-2 unit as copilot, barreling down a trench as laser bolts fly past?
Indeed. I'm waiting for him to justify wanting to talk directly with Iran by saying of President Ahmadinejad "There is still good left in him. I can feel it!"
Since nothing that is observed is happening at the time of the observation, real time is as good a term as any.
I'd say that since according to Relativity we're observing this event at the earliest point in time it would be physically possible for us to observe it, "real time" is a great term.
How many transistors in a modern dual-core processor do you think were actually put there by hand with manual checking of voltage/resistance/heat/etc?
The majority. The most critical components, the caches, the ALUs, branch predictors, the reorder buffers and schedulers are all made by hand and tuned as much as possible to the needs of the product. Of course for most of it that just means they create one SRAM cell and a sense amp macro, or a full adder, and plop down a whole bunch of them (with manual place and route too) which ends up comprising the majority of transistors on a chip. The control logic, which is what actually constitutes the majority of the complexity of the chip, is in fact done with synthesis software from a hardware design language.
I agree completely with your point (including that hardware is headed towards more automation), I was just geeking out there.:)
"Is the power light lit on the monitor?" "No" "Is the monitor's switch turned on?" "Hold on, I'll have to get a flashlight, the power's out in the building." *eye twitch*
Haha, straight from one of the old lists of classic call center jokes that's gone around.
Not that I don't believe this happened to you for real! While I've never had the misfortune to work tech support, my mother did, and I once sent her one of those lists, and she pointed out two or three real screamers that had actually happened to her in just the couple months she'd worked there up to that point.
How is energy detected that crosses the spectrum boundaries between 2 detection methods?
I really don't know. I never took signals in school, so I couldn't even tell you with specificity how a radio antennae differs from a microwave antennae, other than that they are in fact different.:P
Actually, none of them are videogame-related. He is being reprimanded for misbehavior regarding his role as an agent of the court. They arose in the context of a lawsuit which featured games as part of its subject matter, but none of this actually has anything to do with games.
No kidding... Everyone understood that it was "game related lawsuits" automatically... Well almost everyone I guess. Why didn't you?
But hey, someone who disagrees with "the viewpoint" is being punished. That the malfeasance and reprimand has nothing to do with that viewpoint is irrelevant, so long as everyone gets their blood.
But it does have something to do with "the viewpoint". These were game-related trials he was involved in, in which he was pushing his "viewpoint". The fact that he could only push his viewpoint in the courtroom via acts of malfeasance tells you something about the validity of his arguments. He had no facts or legal arguments on his side, so he had to resort to childish BS like putting gay porn in briefs, or making baseless accusations against judges that rule against him. He uses the same techniques of slandering his opponents outside the courtroom, because his arguments even freed from the restrictions of the courtroom are equally weak.
So yes, there is a rather significant connection between his anti-gaming views, and his ability to back those views up in the courtroom in a legally acceptable manner.
Oh and don't pretend this is just "someone" who disagrees with "the viewpoint". This is Jack fucking Thompson, gamer-hater #1, who has gone out of his way to slander gamers and game makers with anything he can think of, and is thus hated by gamers more than anyone else. You can't possibly believe than just anyone who is anti-gaming would get the same reaction as JT, because that is demonstrably not the case.
It's because we didn't understand the problems of asbestos, and thus used it everywhere, and then had workers doing demolition breathing it in often without so much as a face mask, nevermind a respirator, that caused asbestos become lawyers' wet dream come true.
Figuring out how to use the material safely before it gets out of the laboratory and is widely deployed is how you stop the lawyers from taking over.
As if shutting the fuck up would stop it from being carcinogenic! Give the lawyer a nice conspiracy theory angle to prove willful endangerment, why don't you?! Or, we could establish reasonable safety precautions, creating an a-priori defense against lawsuits.
Naw, head in the sand works best! Seriously, self-defeating logic at its worst.
Well, asbestos isn't normally airborne or inhaled, either, until someone knocks down a wall containing it with a sledgehammer or scrape off their textured ceiling.
You can't just rely on it's "normal" state for safety, that just doesn't work. However, that's okay, because now that we have some idea of the dangers of nanotubes, we can use that knowledge to avoid them. We can use different types of nanotubes where possible, we can use binding materials that will make it less likely they become airborne, and so on. It's unfortunate because it does mean that some applications may have to be reconsidered, but on the other hand knowing and avoiding the danger can avoid an outright ban on the substance.
Oh, and combining multiple risk factors for cancer is a bad idea... just breathing diesel fumes isn't as bad as breathing diesel and having microscopic spears stuck in your lung tissue.;)
Small molecules can get in the spaces between cells cause and cancer. That's not new, just ask benzene.
Sometimes I wonder if some scientists are so specialized they can't see the forest for the trees.
Oh, so you would have classified carbon nanotubes as a definite carcinogen based on this "forest" view you have? A view that doesn't even understand how cancer is actually caused by these substances?
There's nothing inherently surprising about this. It's how science works. A real scientist, instead of a/. insta-pundit who seeks only to find a way to sound smarter than scientists, first considers the possibility of something causing cancer based on their domain knowledge, then tests to see if their hypothesis is true.
Um, why wasn't the entire EM spectrum scanned across the heavens instead of "discrete" well-known segments like radio, x-ray, visible, IR, UV, etc.? Is it a money and time issue? Otherwise it seems that this should have been found decades ago.
Because different wavelengths require different technologies to detect. Like to detect visible wavelengths you use big mirrors and/or lenses, while to detect radio waves you use antennas, and so forth. It's not as simple as "scanning" the entire spectrum.
strawman, i see you. the hoover dam was built in the days of a government owned power grid.
I'd already noted that the dam was different because it wasn't really a subsidy, it was simply a government project. Yet it still worked; if economic subsidies are bad for skewing what is 'profitable', wouldn't a pure government project be worse as it completely avoids all market influence? Yet, it is quite successful.
You can argue that this does not support my point that subsidies aren't always bad, but it isn't a strawman as I did not fallaciously present it as my opponent's argument.
It's been my experience that raiding is what you make of it. If you're there to mechanically destroy bosses and await your lottery winnings then it is deeply repetitive and boring. If you're there to push yourself to your in-game limits and have a blast with friends, it's grand time every week.
Yeah, I wouldn't have done it for months on end if I wasn't having fun. But while some parts are boring (most trash, Attumen, etc), others are an absolute blast. No matter how many times i do it, I love killing Shade of Aran. Gruul is hella-fun too.
It'd be pretty sad if I was so bored during these raids that I considered it a punishment, and was actually bitter that other people got to skip the punishment. That sounds more like a sign of an addictive personality (won't stop doing something, even though it brings no pleasure).
Slashdot Mirror
A NASA-funded test of an entirely new way to explode orbiting satellites has ended with promising success!
Religion: A large, popular cult.
Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Thinking for yourself: Awesome.
Hey man, I'm not going to think for myself, just because you tell me to!
We interrupt this rant to prevent any insipid Uranus puns.
I thought that's why we renamed it "Urectum".
Which is actually know anything.
2) This fact is completely unknown to most everybody who "believes" (as you put it) that global warming is a crisis.
No, it's known by a great many. It's already been studied, and accounted for, by climatologists. It's discussed frequently with regards to global warming, because increasing solar output combined with increased greenhouse gases makes the problem even worse.
Your "unbiased" "scientific" mindset causes you to be ready to jump down the throats of anyone who voices a contrary opinion.
Why yes we're ready to jump down the throats of peoples whose opinions are conceived in abject ignorance, but who insist on presenting their uneducated ignorant opinions as though it is not only equal to, but superior, to the opinions of those who have done actual science in the field. These are not the same type of opinion. Stop pretending that having this explained to you is somehow a form of censorship or a sign of just how unreasonable everyone else is.
The second article in the story claims that the Big Red Spot is "roughly as wide as the entire Earth", which of course is wrong it's about 3 times the diameter of earth, as the first and correct article claims.
;)
So their problem wasn't reading too fast, it was clicking the wrong link.
First of all, the Soviets had their own state religion: The cult of personality devoted to their glorious leader.
His statues, his pictures, his words were revered.
The state was officially atheist. If "cults of personality" count, then plenty of alleged atheists are really religious, which given your explosion of anger in the next sentence I think you would take issue with.
Secondly, how the HELL do you "practice non-religion"? Talk about your weak, weak attempt of lumping "not Christian" in along with "soviet totalitarian". You should be ashamed
Marshal as much deliberately stupid and useless pedantry in an effort to fail to understand as you want. The fact is, atheists murdered millions of Christians due to their beliefs.
And if you weren't being deliberately stupid, maybe you would have gotten the point which is that of course the "lumping" of all atheists with Soviet totalitarians is invalid, just as lumping in all Christians with the Inquisitors is invalid. In fact, the Soviets had more in common with the Inquisition than Soviets do with Atheists or the Inquisition with Christianity in the present.
Like the word "practicing" changes that.
A spray-on explosives detector already exists. Here's a picture of it in action in a field situation where explosives may have been present.
That one has a few negative side effects, though... Maybe this new one improves on them? That'd probably be helpful in airports.
If thats not coercian of the worst kind I don't know what is. And it was a part of the roman catholic church - a supposed religion.
Uh-huh. And I suppose then it would be fair to judge a modern day practitioners of non-religion (i.e. atheism) by the actions of Soviet Russia, and the millions of Christians slain?
Surely there are no differences of time and place. Clearly I must fear to reveal that I am a Christian lest I be sent to a Siberian gulag to work or freeze myself to death, just as you today must feverishly espouse your faith in Jesus lest you be tortured to death. Strange that they could both be true at the same time, though...
Ah man, but they were just about to level up to OT II!
Apart from that, my slashdot UID is lower, my kids smarter, my wife prettier, and my crap smells like cinnamon rolls.
Jeebus, somebody needs to call the health inspectors on the Cinnabon in your area...
You have a right to sell your copy, but effectively you can't because it's been tied to your hardware.
It seems to me that the courts have not typically ruled against "effective" rights violations*. There's no law that says Microsoft can't require your PC to phone home to verify it's using the same hardware as before. So while this decision could be repeated if Microsoft tried to stop you from reselling Vista and you went to court over it, it would probably not have any effect on that sold copy of Vista being useless because Microsoft wouldn't activate it.
* See Eldridge v Ashcroft, "retroactive finite copyright extensions, repeated infinitely" doesn't violate principle of copyrights being finite.
That was part of the charm of the original trilogy, and something that largely seemed to be absent from the prequels - Lucas' idea of the 'used future'. Ships were ruddy and worn. Decks were scratched. Hulls were scored with carbon from blasters and battle. Even uniforms were marked up.
And lest we forget, the much revered Millennium Falcon was basically just a souped-up freighter used for smuggling, and an old, cantankerous one at that. This gave the ship personality.
Something which was mostly lacking from the prequels. Not only are the ships and worlds crisp and clean and completely forgettable, so are the character's personalities flat. It's not entirely surprising since it mostly focuses on bureaucrats and the sage and stoic Jedi. But even Samuel Jackson couldn't bring any significant amount of personality to the movies.
The characters are the same way. Where are the grungy smugglers and seedy characters which gave Star Wars its intrigue and appeal? Sure, there were some obvious attempts, but they just didn't come close.
The only one I can remember was that really cheesy "death stick" dealer.
The next President of the United States is likely to be Barack Obama, born 1961. Star Wars was released in 1977- when he was 16. Odds are good he saw it then. Who can know what kind of effect the movie had on him as an impressionable teen? When that 3:00 A.M. phone call comes to tell him that the terrorists/Iranians/aliens have attacked America, how do you know he won't be imagining himself in an Incom X-wing, spoilers locked in attack position, with a trusty R-2 unit as copilot, barreling down a trench as laser bolts fly past?
Indeed. I'm waiting for him to justify wanting to talk directly with Iran by saying of President Ahmadinejad "There is still good left in him. I can feel it!"
Since nothing that is observed is happening at the time of the observation, real time is as good a term as any.
I'd say that since according to Relativity we're observing this event at the earliest point in time it would be physically possible for us to observe it, "real time" is a great term.
How many transistors in a modern dual-core processor do you think were actually put there by hand with manual checking of voltage/resistance/heat/etc?
:)
The majority. The most critical components, the caches, the ALUs, branch predictors, the reorder buffers and schedulers are all made by hand and tuned as much as possible to the needs of the product. Of course for most of it that just means they create one SRAM cell and a sense amp macro, or a full adder, and plop down a whole bunch of them (with manual place and route too) which ends up comprising the majority of transistors on a chip. The control logic, which is what actually constitutes the majority of the complexity of the chip, is in fact done with synthesis software from a hardware design language.
I agree completely with your point (including that hardware is headed towards more automation), I was just geeking out there.
"Is the power light lit on the monitor?"
"No"
"Is the monitor's switch turned on?"
"Hold on, I'll have to get a flashlight, the power's out in the building."
*eye twitch*
Haha, straight from one of the old lists of classic call center jokes that's gone around.
Not that I don't believe this happened to you for real! While I've never had the misfortune to work tech support, my mother did, and I once sent her one of those lists, and she pointed out two or three real screamers that had actually happened to her in just the couple months she'd worked there up to that point.
It's sad, so so sad.
How is energy detected that crosses the spectrum boundaries between 2 detection methods?
:P
I really don't know. I never took signals in school, so I couldn't even tell you with specificity how a radio antennae differs from a microwave antennae, other than that they are in fact different.
Actually, none of them are videogame-related. He is being reprimanded for misbehavior regarding his role as an agent of the court. They arose in the context of a lawsuit which featured games as part of its subject matter, but none of this actually has anything to do with games.
No kidding... Everyone understood that it was "game related lawsuits" automatically... Well almost everyone I guess. Why didn't you?
But hey, someone who disagrees with "the viewpoint" is being punished. That the malfeasance and reprimand has nothing to do with that viewpoint is irrelevant, so long as everyone gets their blood.
But it does have something to do with "the viewpoint". These were game-related trials he was involved in, in which he was pushing his "viewpoint". The fact that he could only push his viewpoint in the courtroom via acts of malfeasance tells you something about the validity of his arguments. He had no facts or legal arguments on his side, so he had to resort to childish BS like putting gay porn in briefs, or making baseless accusations against judges that rule against him. He uses the same techniques of slandering his opponents outside the courtroom, because his arguments even freed from the restrictions of the courtroom are equally weak.
So yes, there is a rather significant connection between his anti-gaming views, and his ability to back those views up in the courtroom in a legally acceptable manner.
Oh and don't pretend this is just "someone" who disagrees with "the viewpoint". This is Jack fucking Thompson, gamer-hater #1, who has gone out of his way to slander gamers and game makers with anything he can think of, and is thus hated by gamers more than anyone else. You can't possibly believe than just anyone who is anti-gaming would get the same reaction as JT, because that is demonstrably not the case.
Pfft, what a worthless list! It doesn't even have the two true worst IT jobs: Crack Whore Web Admin, and Assistant Crack Whore Web Admin.
You have no clue, do you?
It's because we didn't understand the problems of asbestos, and thus used it everywhere, and then had workers doing demolition breathing it in often without so much as a face mask, nevermind a respirator, that caused asbestos become lawyers' wet dream come true.
Figuring out how to use the material safely before it gets out of the laboratory and is widely deployed is how you stop the lawyers from taking over.
As if shutting the fuck up would stop it from being carcinogenic! Give the lawyer a nice conspiracy theory angle to prove willful endangerment, why don't you?! Or, we could establish reasonable safety precautions, creating an a-priori defense against lawsuits.
Naw, head in the sand works best! Seriously, self-defeating logic at its worst.
Well, asbestos isn't normally airborne or inhaled, either, until someone knocks down a wall containing it with a sledgehammer or scrape off their textured ceiling.
;)
You can't just rely on it's "normal" state for safety, that just doesn't work. However, that's okay, because now that we have some idea of the dangers of nanotubes, we can use that knowledge to avoid them. We can use different types of nanotubes where possible, we can use binding materials that will make it less likely they become airborne, and so on. It's unfortunate because it does mean that some applications may have to be reconsidered, but on the other hand knowing and avoiding the danger can avoid an outright ban on the substance.
Oh, and combining multiple risk factors for cancer is a bad idea... just breathing diesel fumes isn't as bad as breathing diesel and having microscopic spears stuck in your lung tissue.
Small molecules can get in the spaces between cells cause and cancer. That's not new, just ask benzene.
/. insta-pundit who seeks only to find a way to sound smarter than scientists, first considers the possibility of something causing cancer based on their domain knowledge, then tests to see if their hypothesis is true.
Sometimes I wonder if some scientists are so specialized they can't see the forest for the trees.
Oh, so you would have classified carbon nanotubes as a definite carcinogen based on this "forest" view you have? A view that doesn't even understand how cancer is actually caused by these substances?
There's nothing inherently surprising about this. It's how science works. A real scientist, instead of a
Five years ago: Nanotubes may cause cancer.
Today: Research shows nanotubes can cause cancer.
So what's your beef again?
Um, why wasn't the entire EM spectrum scanned across the heavens instead of "discrete" well-known segments like radio, x-ray, visible, IR, UV, etc.? Is it a money and time issue? Otherwise it seems that this should have been found decades ago.
Because different wavelengths require different technologies to detect. Like to detect visible wavelengths you use big mirrors and/or lenses, while to detect radio waves you use antennas, and so forth. It's not as simple as "scanning" the entire spectrum.
strawman, i see you. the hoover dam was built in the days of a government owned power grid.
I'd already noted that the dam was different because it wasn't really a subsidy, it was simply a government project. Yet it still worked; if economic subsidies are bad for skewing what is 'profitable', wouldn't a pure government project be worse as it completely avoids all market influence? Yet, it is quite successful.
You can argue that this does not support my point that subsidies aren't always bad, but it isn't a strawman as I did not fallaciously present it as my opponent's argument.
It's been my experience that raiding is what you make of it. If you're there to mechanically destroy bosses and await your lottery winnings then it is deeply repetitive and boring. If you're there to push yourself to your in-game limits and have a blast with friends, it's grand time every week.
Yeah, I wouldn't have done it for months on end if I wasn't having fun. But while some parts are boring (most trash, Attumen, etc), others are an absolute blast. No matter how many times i do it, I love killing Shade of Aran. Gruul is hella-fun too.
It'd be pretty sad if I was so bored during these raids that I considered it a punishment, and was actually bitter that other people got to skip the punishment. That sounds more like a sign of an addictive personality (won't stop doing something, even though it brings no pleasure).