"gotten" used to be the Queen's English (King James translation of Genesis includes "I have gotten a man from the Lord"). UK English use has deviated over time from early modern. Just sayin'
" Forget the hoarders, the conversions and the "banks"; this is a means to transfer money that everyone should have access to."
The hoarders, the conversions and the "banks" are exactly what make Bitcoin absolutely worthless. To say nothing of the miners. No one wants to send money home to Mom & Pop if they can't trust the handlers and the value fluctuates wildly.
"Our world would traumatize people from the 19th century." Victorians were not as universally repressed as popular belief would suggest. In public, there was higher standard of "official" morality, perhaps. But HG Wells had a quite colourful love life.
Hang on, what about the angular resolution of visible light at 6m, with indents in surely being 0.1mm? Can we get high enough resolution Is that even possible? How fast must the picture be taken to avoid blurring?
The only place where two wrongs make a right is boolean algebra. Revenge/retaliation just continues a cycle of aggression and destruction. I'm hardly happy about extraordinary rendition either. Whatever Anonymous' valid claims may be, this does nothing for their cause, except to give themselves hugely negative publicity. Way to go, generate sympathy for those you are against... sheesh.
Statement 1: The ONLY reasonable explanation is that they are cheating. Or there is an optimisation bug which screws performance.
Comment: I think you need to look at meaning of "ONLY" as you have used it, and the way the rest of the world uses is.
Statement 2: there is no evidence of an optimisation bug, therefore it must be cheating
Comment: One could plausibly argue that there is no actual evidence of cheating, therefore it's an optimisation bug. Since there is no internal evidence of any kind.
Yes, it COULD be cheating, but you can't argue that it must be so based on the information in the article. There are enough weasel phrases in your analysis to populate a weasel world theme park.
Well, Mr. AC, I am F-ing O of it. I don't live in the USA. I'll fully accept that anti-BP sentiment is justified. Hey, if they were greedy corporate imbeciles, then sue them just as you would do greedy corporate imbeciles from the USA or anywhere else.
I'll not accept snide remarks made about BP just because it's British. That's irrelevant.
Absolutely! The oil spill is bad enough, and there's no point pretending otherwise, but I find the anti-British sentiment that accompanies it unbelievably distasteful. As we say in football (soccer), play the ball, not the man! Deal with the issues, of course. It doesn't matter who owns BP; they and the company should be held to account without regard to their nationality.
I think what most people fail to understand is the cultural gap between the UK and the USA in this regard. We start from different cultural assumptions about guns, I think. The USA mindset often includes "the right to bear arms" as a fundamental part of the culture. The American revolution and it's cultural consequences are embedded in the many of its citizens think. British mindset is often geared to a nostalgic desire for a past with less violence, where the village policeman was able to carry out his duties without recourse to firearms. Regardless of the truth or otherwise of these viewpoints, they are part of the cultural memes.
The WW2 analogy isn't a great one. Yes, Britain was in a bad position in 1939 because of underinvestment in the armed forces, and an unwise view of Nazi Germany. But that was a question about warfare, the right of the state to defend itself against aggression, and appeasement. The Right to Bear Arms discussion is more about the activities of the individual citizen arming or not arming himself in self-defence in his daily civilian life.
A better question might be to answer why so many slashdot readers lap this stuff up as if it were some kind of bizarre universal truth about the UK. It might well happen in isolated places, but not everywhere. Get a grip, lads. Is it any worse than the CIA blasting Barry Manilow at Noriega?
You know, while I appreciate the sentiment about Google, here, I'm getting heartily fed up of the over-use of the Ben Franklin quote on slashdot. It's thought-provoking and makes a good rhetorical point, but it fails any attempt at decent analysis. All people deserve liberty and safety, in a "we hold the following truths to be self-evident" sort of way, so no one should be said not to deserve it. And by its wording it strongly implies that "liberty"==="essential liberty" i.e. all degrees of liberty are equally essential, and somehow denigrates the concept of "temporary safety".
Yeah, I'm probably quoting Mr F out of context, and I'm not a political philosopher, so I'm sure my argument isn't watertight. So sue me. But I do feel that in some quarters the quote is designed to appeal the claque in here, in much the same way that "think of the children" - that much-mocked phrase - is used to appeal to the reactionary corner of society. It actually stops people from analysing the problem in hand by triggering some kind of American/Liberal hindbrain reflex.
Can we think about it a little more, that's all I'm asking.
Slashdot Mirror
"gotten" used to be the Queen's English (King James translation of Genesis includes "I have gotten a man from the Lord"). UK English use has deviated over time from early modern. Just sayin'
This only works with Daleks, not nuclear weapons
" Forget the hoarders, the conversions and the "banks"; this is a means to transfer money that everyone should have access to."
The hoarders, the conversions and the "banks" are exactly what make Bitcoin absolutely worthless. To say nothing of the miners. No one wants to send money home to Mom & Pop if they can't trust the handlers and the value fluctuates wildly.
Of course! Insulting the US patent office is a known technique to guarantee your submission will be calmly and objectively reviewed. Do it now.
I look forward to seeing this on the front page of the Daily Mail.
"Our world would traumatize people from the 19th century." Victorians were not as universally repressed as popular belief would suggest. In public, there was higher standard of "official" morality, perhaps. But HG Wells had a quite colourful love life.
Hardly "Scientists themselves", is it?
Hang on, what about the angular resolution of visible light at 6m, with indents in surely being 0.1mm? Can we get high enough resolution Is that even possible? How fast must the picture be taken to avoid blurring?
No, haven't RTFA. So sue me.
Compare:
O2 Fixes 'Accidental' Leak of Phone Numbers
vs
O2 Fixes Accidental Leak of Phone Numbers
Artichoke
Dolphin
If you want to avoid all the chatter and buzz around the concept of gamification, I recommend being me. Never heard of it. Is this a US thing?
Or for UK readers, Mitchell and Webb?
By all means have an argument with the straw man you consider me to be. You'll always beat him. But did I say that? No, I didn't.
Hehe, well I am British. Who knows, maybe I would have been. Nice try at an ad hominem attack though.
The only place where two wrongs make a right is boolean algebra. Revenge/retaliation just continues a cycle of aggression and destruction. I'm hardly happy about extraordinary rendition either. Whatever Anonymous' valid claims may be, this does nothing for their cause, except to give themselves hugely negative publicity. Way to go, generate sympathy for those you are against... sheesh.
Another mature contribution from those grown-ups at Anonymous.
Let's review that argument, shall we?
Statement 1: The ONLY reasonable explanation is that they are cheating. Or there is an optimisation bug which screws performance.
Comment: I think you need to look at meaning of "ONLY" as you have used it, and the way the rest of the world uses is.
Statement 2: there is no evidence of an optimisation bug, therefore it must be cheating
Comment: One could plausibly argue that there is no actual evidence of cheating, therefore it's an optimisation bug. Since there is no internal evidence of any kind.
Yes, it COULD be cheating, but you can't argue that it must be so based on the information in the article. There are enough weasel phrases in your analysis to populate a weasel world theme park.
{citation required}
Well, Mr. AC, I am F-ing O of it. I don't live in the USA. I'll fully accept that anti-BP sentiment is justified. Hey, if they were greedy corporate imbeciles, then sue them just as you would do greedy corporate imbeciles from the USA or anywhere else.
I'll not accept snide remarks made about BP just because it's British. That's irrelevant.
Absolutely! The oil spill is bad enough, and there's no point pretending otherwise, but I find the anti-British sentiment that accompanies it unbelievably distasteful. As we say in football (soccer), play the ball, not the man! Deal with the issues, of course. It doesn't matter who owns BP; they and the company should be held to account without regard to their nationality.
I think what most people fail to understand is the cultural gap between the UK and the USA in this regard. We start from different cultural assumptions about guns, I think. The USA mindset often includes "the right to bear arms" as a fundamental part of the culture. The American revolution and it's cultural consequences are embedded in the many of its citizens think. British mindset is often geared to a nostalgic desire for a past with less violence, where the village policeman was able to carry out his duties without recourse to firearms. Regardless of the truth or otherwise of these viewpoints, they are part of the cultural memes.
The WW2 analogy isn't a great one. Yes, Britain was in a bad position in 1939 because of underinvestment in the armed forces, and an unwise view of Nazi Germany. But that was a question about warfare, the right of the state to defend itself against aggression, and appeasement. The Right to Bear Arms discussion is more about the activities of the individual citizen arming or not arming himself in self-defence in his daily civilian life.
A better question might be to answer why so many slashdot readers lap this stuff up as if it were some kind of bizarre universal truth about the UK. It might well happen in isolated places, but not everywhere. Get a grip, lads. Is it any worse than the CIA blasting Barry Manilow at Noriega?
Agreed. Nice to have a considered response; thank you.
You know, while I appreciate the sentiment about Google, here, I'm getting heartily fed up of the over-use of the Ben Franklin quote on slashdot. It's thought-provoking and makes a good rhetorical point, but it fails any attempt at decent analysis. All people deserve liberty and safety, in a "we hold the following truths to be self-evident" sort of way, so no one should be said not to deserve it. And by its wording it strongly implies that "liberty"==="essential liberty" i.e. all degrees of liberty are equally essential, and somehow denigrates the concept of "temporary safety".
Yeah, I'm probably quoting Mr F out of context, and I'm not a political philosopher, so I'm sure my argument isn't watertight. So sue me. But I do feel that in some quarters the quote is designed to appeal the claque in here, in much the same way that "think of the children" - that much-mocked phrase - is used to appeal to the reactionary corner of society. It actually stops people from analysing the problem in hand by triggering some kind of American/Liberal hindbrain reflex.
Can we think about it a little more, that's all I'm asking.