There's two semantic goofs in this submission, one in the title and the other in the first sentence, and neither was noticed or corrected by Soulskill. The phrase "vertical 3D transistors" is misleading, since a literal interpretation doesn't describe z-axis stacking and instead describes objects whose most significant dimension is oriented vertically; it would be more accurate to write "stacked 3D transistors". In the first sentence, the adjective phrase "vertically stacked" is certainly a pleonasm if there ever was one; the definition of "stacked" already describes a z-axis or "vertical" state. The use of the word "vertical" in both of those instances is ineffective semantics.
Maybe men can find a better use for a robotic hand that's dextrous and fast enough for rock-paper-scissors? If Howard Wolowitz had one of these, maybe he could've avoided that embarrassing hospital trip?
This is awesome for Curt Schilling. Now he can embellish his bloggy arse off until the cows come home about what a heroic job creator he is and not have to worry about getting nicked for it.
I'm surprised you're even willing to post that comment without the cloak of anonymity. I hope, for your sake, that you were being sarcastic/facetious. Stuxnet didn't penetrate Iran's facilities via the Internet at all. It escaped to and spread via the Internet after the fact, but that wasn't its delivery vector.
Great. Now what are they gonna do about the loudness wars being waged every day by the children in my neighborhood? I finally got the brats off my lawn, now can they get 'em to STFU? It's like living in the Amazon basin next to a colony of howler monkeys.
Thanks, sociologists, for once again stating an obvious fact of human nature. News flash: Wikipedia suffers from the same vicissitudes of human behavior as every other compilation of knowledge on the planet.
That's because 9/11 didn't eliminate the people who are actually breaking it. The terrorists wanted those people to make us suffer by doing it. It worked, didn't it?
And thus since the government we have now is pretty intent on surreptitiously breaking the Constitution at every opportunity, losing that government entirely "in a mushroom cloud" wouldn't doom the Constitution at all as this joker claims. It might manage to set back the plans of those who'd like to profit from the breakage, though.
I think the Constitution will survive a nuclear holocaust in D.C. just fine. It's a set of intangible ideas. What might not survive it is the One Percent's hold on government by proxy. Which makes me wonder about Ornstein's pedigree given that he would make such a misdirected statement.
Oh, well, no argument there, though I don't think we'll live to see a generation of humans that aren't prone to groupthink and dogmatism. If anything it's probably getting worse and not better. Tribalism FTW.
I was plus-oneing the first part of his comment, not so much the latter part. You mistakenly presume that the necessary information for informed voting actually exists and that mere socializing is the vehicle that disseminates it? What happens when no one but the candidates themselves and their inner circles are actually informed? Socializing just disseminates the B.S. that the candidates misframe as useful information. That is exactly what happens now, and has been happening for at least many decades.
The ambition to run for public office should immediately disqualify anyone who attempts it. We should choose our elected officials at semi-random, through a process like a merging of American jury selection and American Idol. The initial selection phase should be completely at random, to shut out those who are the most ambitious and the least ethical.
But those are the problems; of course those are obvious; there's no mis-information potential there, really (well, unless you count global warming). The mis-information abounds concerning WHO exactly is capable of coordinating a resolution of those problems. EVERY candidate will claim he can resolve them, but are any of them telling the truth and not embellishing the heck out of their own abilities? Quite often it's the case that NONE of them can actually resolve the problems, and we truly are voting for mediocrity without being the wiser.
This sounds suspiciously like preliminary marketing buzz for a new Kaspersky Labs software venture: create perception of a problem so they can then leap in and solve it. As irredeemably cynical as I am about human motives, behavior, and so-called intelligence, even I don't believe that a lack of e-voting will be a significant deterrent to people voting. The proximal cause of most people not voting, as demonstrated time and time again, is disillusionment with the whole process and the mediocre - at best - results... "why bother when my vote doesn't count and I have no idea who the 'better man' actually is?"
I'm not one of those critters, either, just someone whose editorial aptitudes shouldn't be wasted here. If I were the owner of FunnyJunk, I'd have already retained another lawyer and kicked Carreon to the curb before this occurred... but perhaps that's just me? Of course if I really were the owner of FunnyJunk I'd likely also be just as unprincipled and sociopathic as my lawyer, in which case I'd be having a beer with Carreon and commiserating about our respective "unjustified" persecutions.
There are ample bytes allowed in Slashdot titles to allow at least a LESS misleading title for this summary. I'm not going to dissect the summary in detail, because that was Samzenpus' job, not mine. There's blame to spare on this one.
As if our resident SEO spammer wasn't writing on the wall enough, now we have here a well-known rather high-profile regular who submits an article for publishing after having failed to even read the article he's referenced correctly or fully, producing BOTH a misleading summary AND title... AND it gets approved.
Slashdot Mirror
There's two semantic goofs in this submission, one in the title and the other in the first sentence, and neither was noticed or corrected by Soulskill. The phrase "vertical 3D transistors" is misleading, since a literal interpretation doesn't describe z-axis stacking and instead describes objects whose most significant dimension is oriented vertically; it would be more accurate to write "stacked 3D transistors". In the first sentence, the adjective phrase "vertically stacked" is certainly a pleonasm if there ever was one; the definition of "stacked" already describes a z-axis or "vertical" state. The use of the word "vertical" in both of those instances is ineffective semantics.
Maybe men can find a better use for a robotic hand that's dextrous and fast enough for rock-paper-scissors? If Howard Wolowitz had one of these, maybe he could've avoided that embarrassing hospital trip?
This is awesome for Curt Schilling. Now he can embellish his bloggy arse off until the cows come home about what a heroic job creator he is and not have to worry about getting nicked for it.
Have you seen the condition of their organs? I'll pass, thx.
I'm surprised you're even willing to post that comment without the cloak of anonymity. I hope, for your sake, that you were being sarcastic/facetious. Stuxnet didn't penetrate Iran's facilities via the Internet at all. It escaped to and spread via the Internet after the fact, but that wasn't its delivery vector.
Great. Now what are they gonna do about the loudness wars being waged every day by the children in my neighborhood? I finally got the brats off my lawn, now can they get 'em to STFU? It's like living in the Amazon basin next to a colony of howler monkeys.
Didja mean Frank Langella?
No, silly! Jesus was an Engineer. Can't you keep up with the new knowledge coming out of movies?
Thanks, sociologists, for once again stating an obvious fact of human nature. News flash: Wikipedia suffers from the same vicissitudes of human behavior as every other compilation of knowledge on the planet.
That's because 9/11 didn't eliminate the people who are actually breaking it. The terrorists wanted those people to make us suffer by doing it. It worked, didn't it?
And thus since the government we have now is pretty intent on surreptitiously breaking the Constitution at every opportunity, losing that government entirely "in a mushroom cloud" wouldn't doom the Constitution at all as this joker claims. It might manage to set back the plans of those who'd like to profit from the breakage, though.
Since I'm inclined to ask you to please explain the joke, I'd have to say no?
I think the Constitution will survive a nuclear holocaust in D.C. just fine. It's a set of intangible ideas. What might not survive it is the One Percent's hold on government by proxy. Which makes me wonder about Ornstein's pedigree given that he would make such a misdirected statement.
They're Russians, so of course they're cheap. Can't let anything cut into the vodka budget. *ducks to avoid the nukes*
Oh, well, no argument there, though I don't think we'll live to see a generation of humans that aren't prone to groupthink and dogmatism. If anything it's probably getting worse and not better. Tribalism FTW.
I was plus-oneing the first part of his comment, not so much the latter part. You mistakenly presume that the necessary information for informed voting actually exists and that mere socializing is the vehicle that disseminates it? What happens when no one but the candidates themselves and their inner circles are actually informed? Socializing just disseminates the B.S. that the candidates misframe as useful information. That is exactly what happens now, and has been happening for at least many decades.
The ambition to run for public office should immediately disqualify anyone who attempts it. We should choose our elected officials at semi-random, through a process like a merging of American jury selection and American Idol. The initial selection phase should be completely at random, to shut out those who are the most ambitious and the least ethical.
But those are the problems; of course those are obvious; there's no mis-information potential there, really (well, unless you count global warming). The mis-information abounds concerning WHO exactly is capable of coordinating a resolution of those problems. EVERY candidate will claim he can resolve them, but are any of them telling the truth and not embellishing the heck out of their own abilities? Quite often it's the case that NONE of them can actually resolve the problems, and we truly are voting for mediocrity without being the wiser.
+1
Voting isn't what's important. Having an informed opinion is.
There, fixed that for you. And exactly how do you propose that people get informed, when 90% of what they read and see and hear is mis-information?
This sounds suspiciously like preliminary marketing buzz for a new Kaspersky Labs software venture: create perception of a problem so they can then leap in and solve it. As irredeemably cynical as I am about human motives, behavior, and so-called intelligence, even I don't believe that a lack of e-voting will be a significant deterrent to people voting. The proximal cause of most people not voting, as demonstrated time and time again, is disillusionment with the whole process and the mediocre - at best - results... "why bother when my vote doesn't count and I have no idea who the 'better man' actually is?"
And in this parallel universe, everyone has goatse.
Fixed.
I'm not one of those critters, either, just someone whose editorial aptitudes shouldn't be wasted here. If I were the owner of FunnyJunk, I'd have already retained another lawyer and kicked Carreon to the curb before this occurred... but perhaps that's just me? Of course if I really were the owner of FunnyJunk I'd likely also be just as unprincipled and sociopathic as my lawyer, in which case I'd be having a beer with Carreon and commiserating about our respective "unjustified" persecutions.
There are ample bytes allowed in Slashdot titles to allow at least a LESS misleading title for this summary. I'm not going to dissect the summary in detail, because that was Samzenpus' job, not mine. There's blame to spare on this one.
FYI, vapid whining about limited title space aside, here's a competent example of how it's done (for the exact same news quoting the same sources).
As if our resident SEO spammer wasn't writing on the wall enough, now we have here a well-known rather high-profile regular who submits an article for publishing after having failed to even read the article he's referenced correctly or fully, producing BOTH a misleading summary AND title... AND it gets approved.
Slashdot is dead, long live... Google+?