-noun 1. Also called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations.
None of the points on the scienceblogs.com page you link to stop the brain from falling into this category. Things like 'the brain is analog, not digital' - so what? A computer doesn't have to be digital. 'The brain has a body' - which it receives inputs from and sends outputs to. Still a computer.
I guess it depends on your definition of 'computer', but they seem to be defining it as 'personal computer whose processor is made by Intel or AMD.'
I thought you were trying to argue against my point?
Your entire argument rests on how you *feel*. Emotion. Vacuous stuff if you're trying to offer any kind of objective justification. And the only reason you feel that way is because it's been hammered into you from birth. You could've had a British identity hammered into you, in the same way the French get a French identity Canadians a Canadian identity, Americans an American identity, to name but three bigger countries. Look how arbitrary your feelings are. They carry no argumental weight with me whatsoever.
We, and I dare say, our Welsh counterparts, feel a little bit of us die inside every time we see UK in a headline of a story that really only applies to England - we have our own devolved governments and in Scotland we even have out own legal system. Wales was conquered so their legal system was subverted for the English one. Scotland was bought (google the darien scheme for a bit of back ground) in the words of our national poet - We were bought and sold for English Gold. One of the conditions of this sale was that we kept our own legal system.
And yet, you gain from having being 'conquered', whether you realize it or not. Your entire independence campaigns are founded on one thing: emotion. 'National pride', 'Scotland is the best in the world', 'an independent Scotland', 'not being ruled by the Parties Of Westminster', 'self-determination'. At the end of the day, there is not one objective fact amongst these arguments, and every single one of them appeals to primal, 100% emotional, nationalism. Never has a debate been further from objective fact. You draw a line on a map and assert the bits to the north and south of it should be 'independent', and you leave it at that. No consideration that real electoral reform in Westminster itself might be a better option.
At the end of the day, beyond emotion, there is almost no real reason why Scotland should (or, to be fair, should not) be independent. What I would point out is that most European countries have a landmass roughly the same as Britain (not Scotland), a population roughly the same as Britain (not Scotland), and influence in the EU roughly the same as Britain (not Scotland). They also don't have to put up with the constant unproductive infighting that nationalism causes. If I were a Scot, I'd be against independence for Scotland's own good, and whatsmore I'd want the whole independence debate to go away, never to return. If you want to be run by Alex Salmond... well then, God help ya. The protestant or catholic one; I'm not sure which.
He plays in English football leagues. In that sense the sentence is fine. It can be paraphrased as, "Only one of the most famous players of English football in the world."
And that's why I personally follow rugby and despise soccer - it's a better game
[citation needed]
Personally I think rugby is deathly boring. Run, pass, slam into opponent. Run, pass, pass, slam into opponent. Run, pass, slam into opponent. Run, slam into opponent. Ruck... pass, run, slam into opponent. Run... good run, close to a try! Slam into opponent, lose possession. Opponent team runs. Slam into opponent. Pass, run, slam into opponent.
Unrelated note: For some reason, I mis-read the slashdot headline as "What To Do When the Raptors Come?"
what do you do when the raptors come?
Dunno about the raptors, but Revelation gives us some very important information about the dragon (Revelation 20):
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
OK, so can we be clear that Google Chrome is a browser designed for netbooks?
I mean, they should probably rename it Google Netbook or something. In all seriousness, if things are going to be targetted at a very low resolution, I don't want to run them on my PC with a real monitor.
Oh, the user-friendlyness of Windows. Everything is so simple on Windows, while I imagine that on Linux (if it had such a feature), you would need to edit a text file with comments in it. Horrible.
You're looking at it from a low-level editing point of view.
If I wanted to make a GUI tool (which I and may other users, despite howls of protest from Unix diehards, would like) to modify that reg entry, it would be easy as pie. With a text file which someone may or may not have fucked around with and added comments, put invalid data in, and whose format may well be some proprietary weird one, it would be a lot more difficult. And I'd have to writer a parser, too.
Somewhat-related aside: Why the fuck hasn't Apache moved to an optional XML format for its config files yet? It could make things a lot easier for those who want to write GUI interfaces to customize it. Its proprietary text file format is sort-of-OK in a text editor, but diabolical to parse.
I know Americans aren't very familiar with good regulation, but geez.
Your argument amounts to, 'because it's financially preferable to keep old nukes running, we can't trust government to make sure new, safer ones are built'.
So, are you saying that nothing potentially dangerous should be built unless there will always be a financial incentive for people to build safer versions all the time?
Yep, we can't trust our government or companies to do anything competently. For our own safety, we should clearly ban: - Nuclear plants - Coal plants - Oil plants - Cars - Supermarkets - Highways - Bombs - Guns - Tanks - The police - The fire service - The public health service (outside the US) - Banks - Trains - Computer components - Boats - Aeroplanes - Busses
I mean it's either that, or come up with some kind of system for keeping these entities accountable, so that we would be able to benefit from these things. But since that's impossible, it's too dangerous to allow them.
Folks, wanna see how to really change the world? Follow the example of the brave men and women who are literally putting their bodies on the line to oppose tyranny and injustice in the Middle East
Nice ideal, but that change is still only happening when The Powers That Be in the West actually support the uprising. Witness the difference in fortunes between the West-supported Libyan rebels and the those in Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria.
Only just finished checking over my aunt's computer. She'd paid about £80 because a company cold-called her and said Microsoft had detected a virus on her computer... somehow they also had her postcode. Their 'evidence' for this virus was to show her that not all Windows services were running ('it had shut some down'), and that if it wasn't repaired soon, more services would be shut down. They accessed her computer remotely because she willingly visited a site and ran an executable for them.
I was quite surprised she fell for it. Even a Luddite should realize this kind of cold-calling scam. Maybe the Brits are just suckers?:-)
Many usenet readers provided an astonishing number of features that we have lost in the move to web forums. Maybe something was gained, but much was also lost.
Slashdot Mirror
Quoting Jamie Oliver? He's got to be British.
By the way, your sig link is broken. :-)
Over here, at least, one of Greenpeace's main arguments is that nuclear power plants take too long to build - 5 years.
--
Your brain is not a computer [goo.gl].
Here's a dictionary definition of 'computer':
com.put.er
-noun
1.
Also called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations.
None of the points on the scienceblogs.com page you link to stop the brain from falling into this category. Things like 'the brain is analog, not digital' - so what? A computer doesn't have to be digital. 'The brain has a body' - which it receives inputs from and sends outputs to. Still a computer.
I guess it depends on your definition of 'computer', but they seem to be defining it as 'personal computer whose processor is made by Intel or AMD.'
I consider myself Scottish, not British
I thought you were trying to argue against my point?
Your entire argument rests on how you *feel*. Emotion. Vacuous stuff if you're trying to offer any kind of objective justification. And the only reason you feel that way is because it's been hammered into you from birth. You could've had a British identity hammered into you, in the same way the French get a French identity Canadians a Canadian identity, Americans an American identity, to name but three bigger countries. Look how arbitrary your feelings are. They carry no argumental weight with me whatsoever.
We, and I dare say, our Welsh counterparts, feel a little bit of us die inside every time we see UK in a headline of a story that really only applies to England - we have our own devolved governments and in Scotland we even have out own legal system. Wales was conquered so their legal system was subverted for the English one. Scotland was bought (google the darien scheme for a bit of back ground) in the words of our national poet - We were bought and sold for English Gold. One of the conditions of this sale was that we kept our own legal system.
And yet, you gain from having being 'conquered', whether you realize it or not. Your entire independence campaigns are founded on one thing: emotion. 'National pride', 'Scotland is the best in the world', 'an independent Scotland', 'not being ruled by the Parties Of Westminster', 'self-determination'. At the end of the day, there is not one objective fact amongst these arguments, and every single one of them appeals to primal, 100% emotional, nationalism. Never has a debate been further from objective fact. You draw a line on a map and assert the bits to the north and south of it should be 'independent', and you leave it at that. No consideration that real electoral reform in Westminster itself might be a better option.
At the end of the day, beyond emotion, there is almost no real reason why Scotland should (or, to be fair, should not) be independent. What I would point out is that most European countries have a landmass roughly the same as Britain (not Scotland), a population roughly the same as Britain (not Scotland), and influence in the EU roughly the same as Britain (not Scotland). They also don't have to put up with the constant unproductive infighting that nationalism causes. If I were a Scot, I'd be against independence for Scotland's own good, and whatsmore I'd want the whole independence debate to go away, never to return. If you want to be run by Alex Salmond... well then, God help ya. The protestant or catholic one; I'm not sure which.
He plays in English football leagues. In that sense the sentence is fine. It can be paraphrased as,
"Only one of the most famous players of English football in the world."
And that's why I personally follow rugby and despise soccer - it's a better game
[citation needed]
Personally I think rugby is deathly boring. Run, pass, slam into opponent. Run, pass, pass, slam into opponent. Run, pass, slam into opponent. Run, slam into opponent. Ruck... pass, run, slam into opponent. Run... good run, close to a try! Slam into opponent, lose possession. Opponent team runs. Slam into opponent. Pass, run, slam into opponent.
It basically is as exciting as that.
What is tweeter?
No sense of humour? What do you think Icesave was? The only problem was that the English took THAT one seriously.
Unrelated note: For some reason, I mis-read the slashdot headline as "What To Do When the Raptors Come?"
what do you do when the raptors come?
Dunno about the raptors, but Revelation gives us some very important information about the dragon (Revelation 20):
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
OK, so can we be clear that Google Chrome is a browser designed for netbooks?
I mean, they should probably rename it Google Netbook or something. In all seriousness, if things are going to be targetted at a very low resolution, I don't want to run them on my PC with a real monitor.
Harder.
an event like Windscale or Chernobyl or Fukushima every decade or two
Ludicrous to compare these with modern plants. These were all extremely old, and very badly run.
Oh, the user-friendlyness of Windows. Everything is so simple on Windows, while I imagine that on Linux (if it had such a feature), you would need to edit a text file with comments in it. Horrible.
You're looking at it from a low-level editing point of view.
If I wanted to make a GUI tool (which I and may other users, despite howls of protest from Unix diehards, would like) to modify that reg entry, it would be easy as pie. With a text file which someone may or may not have fucked around with and added comments, put invalid data in, and whose format may well be some proprietary weird one, it would be a lot more difficult. And I'd have to writer a parser, too.
Somewhat-related aside: Why the fuck hasn't Apache moved to an optional XML format for its config files yet? It could make things a lot easier for those who want to write GUI interfaces to customize it. Its proprietary text file format is sort-of-OK in a text editor, but diabolical to parse.
I know Americans aren't very familiar with good regulation, but geez.
Your argument amounts to, 'because it's financially preferable to keep old nukes running, we can't trust government to make sure new, safer ones are built'.
So, are you saying that nothing potentially dangerous should be built unless there will always be a financial incentive for people to build safer versions all the time?
Yep, we can't trust our government or companies to do anything competently. For our own safety, we should clearly ban:
- Nuclear plants
- Coal plants
- Oil plants
- Cars
- Supermarkets
- Highways
- Bombs
- Guns
- Tanks
- The police
- The fire service
- The public health service (outside the US)
- Banks
- Trains
- Computer components
- Boats
- Aeroplanes
- Busses
I mean it's either that, or come up with some kind of system for keeping these entities accountable, so that we would be able to benefit from these things. But since that's impossible, it's too dangerous to allow them.
Didn't work for me. It got to a text thing with a flashing cursor but stopped there. I don't see my Ubuntu desktop or browser icon.
Folks, wanna see how to really change the world? Follow the example of the brave men and women who are literally putting their bodies on the line to oppose tyranny and injustice in the Middle East
Nice ideal, but that change is still only happening when The Powers That Be in the West actually support the uprising. Witness the difference in fortunes between the West-supported Libyan rebels and the those in Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria.
The real WTF is 'about'. No, it's EXACTLY that. You're too used to your vague imperial rounding. ;-)
Step 41: User demands to know where their porn stash is, a directory that UC seems to have skipped over when copying.
Shit.
Only just finished checking over my aunt's computer. She'd paid about £80 because a company cold-called her and said Microsoft had detected a virus on her computer... somehow they also had her postcode. Their 'evidence' for this virus was to show her that not all Windows services were running ('it had shut some down'), and that if it wasn't repaired soon, more services would be shut down. They accessed her computer remotely because she willingly visited a site and ran an executable for them.
I was quite surprised she fell for it. Even a Luddite should realize this kind of cold-calling scam. Maybe the Brits are just suckers? :-)
Get legislation enacted to guarantee your revenue stream.
That's how the BBC get their revenue stream, and many Slashdotters say they'd like to have that system in their country.
They really are getting desperate, aren't they?
I may have missed something, but are you saying manmade climate change isn't happening?
Many usenet readers provided an astonishing number of features that we have lost in the move to web forums. Maybe something was gained, but much was also lost.
PLONK!!!
Did they ever figure out what that 'somehow' was that allowed the hacker to gain root access from an unprivileged account?