That's what happens to coins. They get dropped. Bills don't get dropped because they are easy to put in a wallet.
What kind of alternate universe to you live in? Bills get dropped all the time. They slip out pockets when you are fishing for keys. They blow away in a breeze. Haven't you gone to a movie lately where the ticket window acts like a leaf blower for your bills?
So why don't we go back in time together to the mid-90's, and you and I can hammer through some hard-core electrical engineering problem sets together. You can have an HP-48, I'll take a TI-81, and we'll see who wins at the 'ole plug-and-chug. What you probably haven't taken into account, is that you can't submit your problem set written out in RPN. So the time and errors that transpire in that back and forth translataion between the problem set and your calculator will more than compensate for what ever advantage in theory RPN may have.
Actually I prefer aerosol physics problems. I don't have the slightest idea why "submitting my problem set written out" is germaine. The comparison was not doing homework hand-ins, but solving equations. If you want to change the parameters of the comparison to something other than equation solving then I admit in advance you probably have both my HP-41 and 48 beat as emergency flashlights, too.
RPN is argueably faster, as you don't need to enter in parenthesis. But you end up having to press the enter key a lot, so the advantage quickly evaporates.
Spoken by someone who clearly doesn't use RPN. The speed advantage of RPN doesn't come from the number of keystrokes needed (even though RPN does take fewer), but with the ability to enter the equation from left to right, start to finish, no matter how many embedded factors there are. While with non-RPN you must evaluate the equation to even know where to start entering and then keep track of where you are in your head.
A friend of mine at MIT had an HP-48, and I had a TI-81, we used to do a lot of engineering problem sets together and would often race on entering calculations. Averaged over time the competition was a draw.
I try not to make such blanket statements on/., but I simply do not believe this. You may have had a friend at MIT, but there isn't any way a non-RPN calculator is as fast as an PRN calculator on any equation more complex than 2 + 2.
The only disadvantage to PRN that I have ever seen is that once you are an RPN user you are ruined for other calculators. I literaly cannot add my deposit checks on the calculator the bank chains to the desk for customers' use.
Be that as it may, it still doesn't change the fact that GP tried to broaden the definition of crime "treason", or to use his own words, attempted to do an end-run around US Constitution.
You are applying an artificial qualifier by defining-away treason by using a law dictionary definition of the word. It is a common and understandable mistake that people make - applying specialized definitions outside the specialized field. The law dictionary definitions you quote do not apply to non-legal situations. They are technical, specialized definitions to be applied only to the practice of law. If we were in court and GP was a prosecutor bringing charges against Gonzales you would be right - he would be performing an end-run around the Constitution. But we are not in court. This is not a legal proceeding. This is an opinion forum.
In a court of law when a person kills his neighbor in a fit of rage it is not "murder" but "manslaughter", yet no one would argue with the grieving widow who screams "He murdered my husband!". The killer would not be able to sue her for calling him a murderer because she did not violate his rights or defame him - he DID murder her husband but he was CHARGED with manslaughter. Subverting the Constitutiion for political gain and violating an oath of office to do so may very well be treason - Gonzales could just not be charged with it in a courtroom unless the prosecutors used his own hyper-technical semantic techniques to do it. Which would be delicious irony, but an end-run around the Constitution.
Hwever, there is an interesting twist on the issue of Gonzales' treason. If Gonzales received any gain (game tickets, vacations, duck-hunting trips, etc) from the illegal activities of Jack Abramoff and then adjusted his legal positions as a result, then he may very well be committing treason by expressing his extreme hyper-technical rationalizations for weakening the Constitution since Abramoff was representing Indian tribes which are technically sovereign nations. In that case even the law dictionary definition of treason has been met.
The situation is a classic tragedy of the commons: does the interest of malificent spammers outweigh Wikipedia's rôle as a semantic mediator between alien but related nodes?
What pretentious bull.
"malificent"...? "rôle"...? "semantic mediator between alien but related nodes"...? This has to be one of the most annoying, pedantic, self-impressed posts ever on slashdot - and that's really saying something. Oh, and I forgot nauseating.
Earth: Yo ET, This is Earth calling hows it hanging? You wana exchange some information, learn about human culture n we learn about urs 30 years later ET: Yo Earth, sure, sounds good here's a data transmission all about us, tell me all about human culture. another 30 years later Earth: Umm, yea, a few things have changed since the last transmission, probably best to forget about human culture, there ain't noone but us giant mutant cockroach thingys over here.
Not the way it would work at all. It would be stupid to send a message and then wait 60 years for a reply. Both civilizatinos would start sending streams of information without feedback. The receiving civilization would pick and chose what is interesting, inserting a query for more information about a particular topic into their data stream. That insures that specific questions get answered after a long wait, but it may have been answered in the meantime in the regular data steam.
It gets really interesting when you find more than one civilization. As well as sending your data stream to civilization B you also forward civilization C's data stream as well. They do the same and before you know it you have a giant interglactic internet with constantly flowing data streams that you can pick useful information out of as it goes past. Sort of a giant ethernet ring.
YOu are right - you are NAL. You have no right to keep stolen property, period. Best Buy might work out a deal where they buy the item from the original owner so you can keep it, but if they wanted their stuff back you would have to give it up. If EXPECTATION was a factor in ownership of stolen property you could keep all the counterfiet money you get, and that won't happen. I can't really see the bank saying "Oh this $50 bill looks pretty real - you can keep it."
Expectation is just used in the courts to determine your level of complicity in the illegal transaction, not to determine ownership.
Ok, wait. I am being unduly snarky. There was nothing wrong with your original post except that it made an entirey unsupported assumption that older viewers needed an Alan Alda to induce them watch a science show. As one of those older persons you pigeon-holed into the hopelessly non-technical I just get tired of all the young whipper-snappers like you making the same assumption that all anyone over 40 knows how to do is hitch up a fucking horse. I have at least four science and engineering degrees (maybe more I could have forgotten one) but when I go into a computer store for a PC board or whatnot I get the same condescending morons who speak slowly and ask me if I'm familiar with the internet or email or some other simple-minded thing. Just last month a minimum-wage Radio Shack genius was showing me a Ni-MH battery charger and he helpfully pointed out the plug that I had to "put into the wall for electricity".
Care to support that statement with facts? I'm fully aware there are a lot of older people who are scientists and/or work in tech fields. But there are many who are not, and don't think they want to know. Do you think they are all scientists?
Re-read my post. You are infering things that are not supported by my statements about the relative science knowlege of age groups. For example, I talked about the demographics of the age groups. I did not say that all older people were scientists, which would be absurd.
You have, ironically, supplied your own proof of my statements that as a whole younger people know less about the scientific method and logical thought than older people. This is getting [mildly] humorous.
I've never been a fan of Wired, even back when they were the Whole Earth Catalog (yes, its true!). Believe it or not they actually renamed the Earth once. evidently "Earth" wasn't cool enough for them. Pink type on green backgrounds in the magazine didn't help me like them any better either. They have always tried to cast themselves as the source of all that is cool and the definers of what is worthwhile.
I did not see the show, but I am not one bit surprised that their presenters were super cool 20-something know-it-alls. Its all true to form.
How are these shows substantially different or improved from Nova ScienceNOW and Scientific American Frontiers? (Speaking of which, having Alan Alda as the host of that show made it palatable for some older people who wouldn't otherwise look at science stories.
Excuse me dude, but what makes you think "older people" don't know science? Do you think science and scientists sprung from the ground twenty years ago? Because science and engineering programs have decreased at all grade levels over the past 20 years there are actually fewer people from the below 30 demographic with solid science educations. The most common response I get when I say some mildly complex science thing to a 20-something is "Huh?". There are PLENTY of people of all ages who don't have a clue about rational scientific thought and the need to support statements with facts. You, for example.:-)
The point with airline security is still really keeping the PLANES secure, for better or worse, and that doesn't just include the cockpit only or preventing planes from being used as missiles. No, I have to disagree. The most important purpose of airline security is keeping the economy safe. No flights for a month and the economy will go to hell. Terrorists, by attacking several airports, could do the same economic damage as if they attacked the planes themselves. That's why security lines offer more illusion than reality. Using planes as missiles to attack economic targets was a [brilliant] force-multiplier that has essentialy disappeared with increased physical security for pilots.
Let there be no mistake - the airline security priorities of the current administration are, in order of decreasing importance: maintaining the illusion of security, protecton of the current administration, protection of the economy, protection of passengers, and lastly protecting planes. (And yes, I know that my definition of "protecting planes" in this list is more literal than your broader def.)
Randomizing the clock of systems serving Tor traffic would render this attack worthless.
Since this and other such attacks are based on analyzing very small changes in the target system clock, even a tiny amount of randomization or pseudo randomization would be effective.
Although it would certainly make it more difficult, it would not be an absolute defense against the identification of the PC. Identification of a PC that is using this defense may not occur in 30 seconds after a single challenge, but could still happen over long periods and many challenges. The defensive changes in clock speed employed by the anonymous PC would not be truly random since they would have to stay within certain narrow parameters. This means that there would be 1)a baseline average clock speed differing for each computer, and 2)an average rate of change of clock speed for each computer. It would likely be possible to statistically identify a change in the average clock speed by issuing it many challenges, and to detect a different rate of change based on the timing of the challenges. In other words, computer 87 has a slightly higher baseline speed when challenged and it has a higher ratio of increases to decreases in its clock speed when challenges are issued.
... but they didn't. Because the whole point of the Roomba is that you don't need to control it.
And why is this "awesome"? Is the Wii remote better than a standard joystick remote (like those used for RC cars) for this application?
This kind of comment is what drives me crazy on slashdot. Why are so many here so bloody literal minded and opposed to innovation for innovation's sake? This is a test bed. A prototype. A proof of concept. No one actually needs a Wii controlled Roomba. Now that the concept is proved it can be applied to other devices. How about a Wii remote controlled RC plane? Now that would be cool.
If you care so little about what you write, that you would use a peripheral that mangles your words, why don't you just throw all of your keyboards into the ocean and shout at the screen?
How old are you...12? I'm through with this stupidity.
Does your inability to use the correct form of to/two/too stem from being an idiot, or does it just violate your cultural values to stoop to using the correct word?
Is that the best reposte you can come up with? Actually my wireless keyboard often omits characters (as you can see from other words in the post) and I don't waste my time trying to corret them. If that makes me an idiot by your definition then so be it. Doofus.
It'll never happen. Respectable intellectuals hate to hear things that aren't politically correct, and as such tend not to test them. Three points... 1. Not only won't it happen, it CAN'T happen. IQ tests are culturally biased. Comparing different cultures by measuring IQs has to many uncontrolled variables to provide meaningful results.
2. IQ test don't measure anyting other than ability to take IQ tests.
3. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because something is politically incorrect it isn't also morally or ethically incorrect, or just plain vile and wrong.
The number killed is tiny compared to most other man-made causes... when you look at the numbers overall, turbine birdstrikes are not much of an issue at all.
Technically true, but you need to look at WHICH birds they kill. Not many condors, eagles or even Canada geese fly into my windows or get killed by houscats. Lumping all species together as "birds" distorts and hides the real issue.
And with some minor modifications Star Trek is Doctor Who which with some minor modifications is Battlestar Galactica which is very similar to Lost in Space which seems a lot like Futurama, a show that brings back memories of Andromeda which is like that old show...
Science fiction based around space travel is simply a variation on a theme. Some guys have this thing (Stargate, Enterprise, TARDIS, Galactica, Jupiter 2, Planet Express) that takes them around the galaxy and they meet these bad guys and they have to outwit them and they do nice things and sometimes bad things and gosh that's all there is to it....and Odysseus had a thing (ship) that he used to travel around meeting bad guys to outwit during his oddysey, and gosh, that's all there is to it. Your logic has a serious flaw in that you state that "SF based on space travel" has the same travel-based theme. Well duh - of course...t r a v e l. Just as all green things have this same redundant color whether they be green beans, green bottles, green leaves or the green ocean. By your logic you have seen a beer bottle, so why should you bother to go see the ocean?
Stop. Back up. What the hell is a "creative"? In my dictionary that's an adjective, not a noun. Nounizing adjectives is almost as bad as verbifying nouns...
Well, technically its just entertainment-industry speak. Just like the actors are always referred to as "the talent" and the caterers are the "craft people".
However, simply using terms such as "talent", "creative" and "craft" to refer to an organization that spewes out lazy brainless stuff like SG Atlantis is the real PR lie.
[pictures of carnage] I wonder if some soldiers feel a need to help the rest of us understand what it's really like out there, or if it's cathartic for them.
I think in most cases it is neither. In a war zone soldiers have to desensitize themselves to things that in normal life would be horrifying. I think these photos start out to be just the military war-zone version of vacation pictures. Later, when back in the real world, the pictures, souvenirs, ears, etc. often become things the soldiers regret having taken. At that time they may very well be cathartic, but they would not have started out that way. We, as civilians, don't understand the situation the soldiers are in, nor how they are forced to adapt their perceptions to preserve their humanity. This is the way it has always been in war, and probably always will be.
I normally don't support the government monitoring web sites or pictures, but in this case they are right to do so. I don't know if the gruesome pictures posted on YouTube are there because the soldiers have forgotten that it is only they that are in the war zone or because they are taking some sort of perverse pleasure in posting them. In any event, I do not think the posts are either noble or cathartic.
The self-checkout lanes need 'done this before' aisles and 'new to tech' aisles. Not sure how best to word it, but that's a far better indicator of how quick you're going to get through vs. how many items someone has. I almost feel cheated when I go through self-service lanes (or ATMs) because I never get to take much time. I swear people in front of me at ATMs must sometimes be trading stocks or applying for a mortgage considering how long it takes them to insert the card and get $20 out.
The problem isn't "done this before", but all the various error messages that that require some arcane action to be taken. It isn't like I actually do anything wrong, the machine just can't accept anything that is even slightly out of the expected action. I can't go too fast, or too slow, or scan the same item five times when I have five of them, or clear out space in the bag shelf when it gets full, or take an item out of a bag because it looks like it scanned wrong, or even FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD feed bills to the machine before coins! Can't the programmers figure this stuff out? And then if I take too long trying to get everything ready and perfect for the machine, whether it is paying or bagging or scanning, it starts repeating the stinking instructions to me over and over and over again. YES! I KNOW I have to scan the next item, thank you, YES! I KNOW I have to pay now!, YES! I KNOW I have to put the item in the bag now! - just shut up!
I always thought the reason you have a cashier supervising them was because the FUCKING SELF CHECKOUT MACHINES DON'T FUCKING WORK.
I've all but given up on "self-check out".
I agree 100%. I don't use self-checkout because I know I will be talking to myself by the time the experience is over and I will be in a bad mood for hours. The human interaction part of these things is pathetic. The machines should be designed to operate in a way that is logical for humans, not try to force humans into doing things in weird non-intuitive ways to satisfy the machine's logic.
Do you really think this is a way to gain change? How naive. All you do is make yourself look like a jackass and no matter how valid your complaint is it will be ignored as a result.
Ask for a manager and tell him or her, politely, how bad the self-checkout experience was for you. You will seem to be a sane, reasonable person and your opinion immediately gains weight. Sabatoging the checkout just labels you a nutcase who's opinion is worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what happens to coins. They get dropped. Bills don't get dropped because they are easy to put in a wallet.
What kind of alternate universe to you live in? Bills get dropped all the time. They slip out pockets when you are fishing for keys. They blow away in a breeze. Haven't you gone to a movie lately where the ticket window acts like a leaf blower for your bills?
So why don't we go back in time together to the mid-90's, and you and I can hammer through some hard-core electrical engineering problem sets together. You can have an HP-48, I'll take a TI-81, and we'll see who wins at the 'ole plug-and-chug. What you probably haven't taken into account, is that you can't submit your problem set written out in RPN. So the time and errors that transpire in that back and forth translataion between the problem set and your calculator will more than compensate for what ever advantage in theory RPN may have.
Actually I prefer aerosol physics problems. I don't have the slightest idea why "submitting my problem set written out" is germaine. The comparison was not doing homework hand-ins, but solving equations. If you want to change the parameters of the comparison to something other than equation solving then I admit in advance you probably have both my HP-41 and 48 beat as emergency flashlights, too.
RPN is argueably faster, as you don't need to enter in parenthesis. But you end up having to press the enter key a lot, so the advantage quickly evaporates.
/., but I simply do not believe this. You may have had a friend at MIT, but there isn't any way a non-RPN calculator is as fast as an PRN calculator on any equation more complex than 2 + 2.
Spoken by someone who clearly doesn't use RPN. The speed advantage of RPN doesn't come from the number of keystrokes needed (even though RPN does take fewer), but with the ability to enter the equation from left to right, start to finish, no matter how many embedded factors there are. While with non-RPN you must evaluate the equation to even know where to start entering and then keep track of where you are in your head.
A friend of mine at MIT had an HP-48, and I had a TI-81, we used to do a lot of engineering problem sets together and would often race on entering calculations. Averaged over time the competition was a draw.
I try not to make such blanket statements on
The only disadvantage to PRN that I have ever seen is that once you are an RPN user you are ruined for other calculators. I literaly cannot add my deposit checks on the calculator the bank chains to the desk for customers' use.
Be that as it may, it still doesn't change the fact that GP tried to broaden the definition of crime "treason", or to use his own words, attempted to do an end-run around US Constitution.
You are applying an artificial qualifier by defining-away treason by using a law dictionary definition of the word. It is a common and understandable mistake that people make - applying specialized definitions outside the specialized field. The law dictionary definitions you quote do not apply to non-legal situations. They are technical, specialized definitions to be applied only to the practice of law. If we were in court and GP was a prosecutor bringing charges against Gonzales you would be right - he would be performing an end-run around the Constitution. But we are not in court. This is not a legal proceeding. This is an opinion forum.
In a court of law when a person kills his neighbor in a fit of rage it is not "murder" but "manslaughter", yet no one would argue with the grieving widow who screams "He murdered my husband!". The killer would not be able to sue her for calling him a murderer because she did not violate his rights or defame him - he DID murder her husband but he was CHARGED with manslaughter. Subverting the Constitutiion for political gain and violating an oath of office to do so may very well be treason - Gonzales could just not be charged with it in a courtroom unless the prosecutors used his own hyper-technical semantic techniques to do it. Which would be delicious irony, but an end-run around the Constitution.
Hwever, there is an interesting twist on the issue of Gonzales' treason. If Gonzales received any gain (game tickets, vacations, duck-hunting trips, etc) from the illegal activities of Jack Abramoff and then adjusted his legal positions as a result, then he may very well be committing treason by expressing his extreme hyper-technical rationalizations for weakening the Constitution since Abramoff was representing Indian tribes which are technically sovereign nations. In that case even the law dictionary definition of treason has been met.
The situation is a classic tragedy of the commons: does the interest of malificent spammers outweigh Wikipedia's rôle as a semantic mediator between alien but related nodes?
What pretentious bull.
"malificent"...? "rôle"...? "semantic mediator between alien but related nodes"...? This has to be one of the most annoying, pedantic, self-impressed posts ever on slashdot - and that's really saying something. Oh, and I forgot nauseating.
Still doesn't solve the embarrassing situation for the giant cockroaches.
We can only hope the other civilization is thousands of years ahead of us in bug-spray technology.
Earth: Yo ET, This is Earth calling hows it hanging? You wana exchange some information, learn about human culture n we learn about urs 30 years later ET: Yo Earth, sure, sounds good here's a data transmission all about us, tell me all about human culture. another 30 years later Earth: Umm, yea, a few things have changed since the last transmission, probably best to forget about human culture, there ain't noone but us giant mutant cockroach thingys over here.
Not the way it would work at all. It would be stupid to send a message and then wait 60 years for a reply. Both civilizatinos would start sending streams of information without feedback. The receiving civilization would pick and chose what is interesting, inserting a query for more information about a particular topic into their data stream. That insures that specific questions get answered after a long wait, but it may have been answered in the meantime in the regular data steam.
It gets really interesting when you find more than one civilization. As well as sending your data stream to civilization B you also forward civilization C's data stream as well. They do the same and before you know it you have a giant interglactic internet with constantly flowing data streams that you can pick useful information out of as it goes past. Sort of a giant ethernet ring.
YOu are right - you are NAL. You have no right to keep stolen property, period. Best Buy might work out a deal where they buy the item from the original owner so you can keep it, but if they wanted their stuff back you would have to give it up. If EXPECTATION was a factor in ownership of stolen property you could keep all the counterfiet money you get, and that won't happen. I can't really see the bank saying "Oh this $50 bill looks pretty real - you can keep it."
Expectation is just used in the courts to determine your level of complicity in the illegal transaction, not to determine ownership.
Ok, wait. I am being unduly snarky. There was nothing wrong with your original post except that it made an entirey unsupported assumption that older viewers needed an Alan Alda to induce them watch a science show. As one of those older persons you pigeon-holed into the hopelessly non-technical I just get tired of all the young whipper-snappers like you making the same assumption that all anyone over 40 knows how to do is hitch up a fucking horse. I have at least four science and engineering degrees (maybe more I could have forgotten one) but when I go into a computer store for a PC board or whatnot I get the same condescending morons who speak slowly and ask me if I'm familiar with the internet or email or some other simple-minded thing. Just last month a minimum-wage Radio Shack genius was showing me a Ni-MH battery charger and he helpfully pointed out the plug that I had to "put into the wall for electricity".
Care to support that statement with facts?
I'm fully aware there are a lot of older people who are scientists and/or work in tech fields. But there are many who are not, and don't think they want to know.
Do you think they are all scientists?
Re-read my post. You are infering things that are not supported by my statements about the relative science knowlege of age groups. For example, I talked about the demographics of the age groups. I did not say that all older people were scientists, which would be absurd.
You have, ironically, supplied your own proof of my statements that as a whole younger people know less about the scientific method and logical thought than older people. This is getting [mildly] humorous.
I've never been a fan of Wired, even back when they were the Whole Earth Catalog (yes, its true!). Believe it or not they actually renamed the Earth once. evidently "Earth" wasn't cool enough for them. Pink type on green backgrounds in the magazine didn't help me like them any better either. They have always tried to cast themselves as the source of all that is cool and the definers of what is worthwhile.
I did not see the show, but I am not one bit surprised that their presenters were super cool 20-something know-it-alls. Its all true to form.
How are these shows substantially different or improved from Nova ScienceNOW and Scientific American Frontiers? (Speaking of which, having Alan Alda as the host of that show made it palatable for some older people who wouldn't otherwise look at science stories.
:-)
Excuse me dude, but what makes you think "older people" don't know science? Do you think science and scientists sprung from the ground twenty years ago? Because science and engineering programs have decreased at all grade levels over the past 20 years there are actually fewer people from the below 30 demographic with solid science educations. The most common response I get when I say some mildly complex science thing to a 20-something is "Huh?". There are PLENTY of people of all ages who don't have a clue about rational scientific thought and the need to support statements with facts. You, for example.
The point with airline security is still really keeping the PLANES secure, for better or worse, and that doesn't just include the cockpit only or preventing planes from being used as missiles.
No, I have to disagree. The most important purpose of airline security is keeping the economy safe. No flights for a month and the economy will go to hell. Terrorists, by attacking several airports, could do the same economic damage as if they attacked the planes themselves. That's why security lines offer more illusion than reality. Using planes as missiles to attack economic targets was a [brilliant] force-multiplier that has essentialy disappeared with increased physical security for pilots.
Let there be no mistake - the airline security priorities of the current administration are, in order of decreasing importance: maintaining the illusion of security, protecton of the current administration, protection of the economy, protection of passengers, and lastly protecting planes. (And yes, I know that my definition of "protecting planes" in this list is more literal than your broader def.)
Randomizing the clock of systems serving Tor traffic would render this attack worthless.
Since this and other such attacks are based on analyzing very small changes in the target system clock, even a tiny amount of randomization or pseudo randomization would be effective.
Although it would certainly make it more difficult, it would not be an absolute defense against the identification of the PC. Identification of a PC that is using this defense may not occur in 30 seconds after a single challenge, but could still happen over long periods and many challenges. The defensive changes in clock speed employed by the anonymous PC would not be truly random since they would have to stay within certain narrow parameters. This means that there would be 1)a baseline average clock speed differing for each computer, and 2)an average rate of change of clock speed for each computer. It would likely be possible to statistically identify a change in the average clock speed by issuing it many challenges, and to detect a different rate of change based on the timing of the challenges. In other words, computer 87 has a slightly higher baseline speed when challenged and it has a higher ratio of increases to decreases in its clock speed when challenges are issued.
... but they didn't. Because the whole point of the Roomba is that you don't
need to control it.
And why is this "awesome"? Is the Wii remote better than a standard joystick
remote (like those used for RC cars) for this application?
This kind of comment is what drives me crazy on slashdot. Why are so many here so bloody literal minded and opposed to innovation for innovation's sake? This is a test bed. A prototype. A proof of concept. No one actually needs a Wii controlled Roomba. Now that the concept is proved it can be applied to other devices. How about a Wii remote controlled RC plane? Now that would be cool.
If you care so little about what you write, that you would use a peripheral that mangles your words, why don't you just throw all of your keyboards into the ocean and shout at the screen?
How old are you...12? I'm through with this stupidity.
Does your inability to use the correct form of to/two/too stem from being an idiot, or does it just violate your cultural values to stoop to using the correct word?
Is that the best reposte you can come up with? Actually my wireless keyboard often omits characters (as you can see from other words in the post) and I don't waste my time trying to corret them. If that makes me an idiot by your definition then so be it. Doofus.
It'll never happen. Respectable intellectuals hate to hear things that aren't politically correct, and as such tend not to test them.
Three points...
1. Not only won't it happen, it CAN'T happen. IQ tests are culturally biased. Comparing different cultures by measuring IQs has to many uncontrolled variables to provide meaningful results.
2. IQ test don't measure anyting other than ability to take IQ tests.
3. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because something is politically incorrect it isn't also morally or ethically incorrect, or just plain vile and wrong.
The number killed is tiny compared to most other man-made causes... when you look at the numbers overall, turbine birdstrikes are not much of an issue at all.
Technically true, but you need to look at WHICH birds they kill. Not many condors, eagles or even Canada geese fly into my windows or get killed by houscats. Lumping all species together as "birds" distorts and hides the real issue.
And with some minor modifications Star Trek is Doctor Who which with some minor modifications is Battlestar Galactica which is very similar to Lost in Space which seems a lot like Futurama, a show that brings back memories of Andromeda which is like that old show...
...and Odysseus had a thing (ship) that he used to travel around meeting bad guys to outwit during his oddysey, and gosh, that's all there is to it. Your logic has a serious flaw in that you state that "SF based on space travel" has the same travel-based theme. Well duh - of course...t r a v e l. Just as all green things have this same redundant color whether they be green beans, green bottles, green leaves or the green ocean. By your logic you have seen a beer bottle, so why should you bother to go see the ocean?
Science fiction based around space travel is simply a variation on a theme. Some guys have this thing (Stargate, Enterprise, TARDIS, Galactica, Jupiter 2, Planet Express) that takes them around the galaxy and they meet these bad guys and they have to outwit them and they do nice things and sometimes bad things and gosh that's all there is to it.
Stop. Back up. What the hell is a "creative"? In my dictionary that's an adjective, not a noun. Nounizing adjectives is almost as bad as verbifying nouns...
Well, technically its just entertainment-industry speak. Just like the actors are always referred to as "the talent" and the caterers are the "craft people".
However, simply using terms such as "talent", "creative" and "craft" to refer to an organization that spewes out lazy brainless stuff like SG Atlantis is the real PR lie.
[pictures of carnage] I wonder if some soldiers feel a need to help the rest of us understand what it's really like out there, or if it's cathartic for them.
I think in most cases it is neither. In a war zone soldiers have to desensitize themselves to things that in normal life would be horrifying. I think these photos start out to be just the military war-zone version of vacation pictures. Later, when back in the real world, the pictures, souvenirs, ears, etc. often become things the soldiers regret having taken. At that time they may very well be cathartic, but they would not have started out that way. We, as civilians, don't understand the situation the soldiers are in, nor how they are forced to adapt their perceptions to preserve their humanity. This is the way it has always been in war, and probably always will be.
I normally don't support the government monitoring web sites or pictures, but in this case they are right to do so. I don't know if the gruesome pictures posted on YouTube are there because the soldiers have forgotten that it is only they that are in the war zone or because they are taking some sort of perverse pleasure in posting them. In any event, I do not think the posts are either noble or cathartic.
The self-checkout lanes need 'done this before' aisles and 'new to tech' aisles. Not sure how best to word it, but that's a far better indicator of how quick you're going to get through vs. how many items someone has. I almost feel cheated when I go through self-service lanes (or ATMs) because I never get to take much time. I swear people in front of me at ATMs must sometimes be trading stocks or applying for a mortgage considering how long it takes them to insert the card and get $20 out.
The problem isn't "done this before", but all the various error messages that that require some arcane action to be taken. It isn't like I actually do anything wrong, the machine just can't accept anything that is even slightly out of the expected action. I can't go too fast, or too slow, or scan the same item five times when I have five of them, or clear out space in the bag shelf when it gets full, or take an item out of a bag because it looks like it scanned wrong, or even FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD feed bills to the machine before coins! Can't the programmers figure this stuff out? And then if I take too long trying to get everything ready and perfect for the machine, whether it is paying or bagging or scanning, it starts repeating the stinking instructions to me over and over and over again. YES! I KNOW I have to scan the next item, thank you, YES! I KNOW I have to pay now!, YES! I KNOW I have to put the item in the bag now! - just shut up!
I refuse to use them anymore.
I always thought the reason you have a cashier supervising them was because the FUCKING SELF CHECKOUT MACHINES DON'T FUCKING WORK.
I've all but given up on "self-check out".
I agree 100%. I don't use self-checkout because I know I will be talking to myself by the time the experience is over and I will be in a bad mood for hours. The human interaction part of these things is pathetic. The machines should be designed to operate in a way that is logical for humans, not try to force humans into doing things in weird non-intuitive ways to satisfy the machine's logic.
Do you really think this is a way to gain change? How naive. All you do is make yourself look like a jackass and no matter how valid your complaint is it will be ignored as a result.
Ask for a manager and tell him or her, politely, how bad the self-checkout experience was for you. You will seem to be a sane, reasonable person and your opinion immediately gains weight. Sabatoging the checkout just labels you a nutcase who's opinion is worthless.