Galaxy tab 7 inch plus 350 dollars. I actually love this form factor and would not buy anything else - can't fit in coat pocket, no deal. (and SwiftKey x for the win!)
I mean, does it have chemical properties that have confounded the best minds? Er.. the best minds with a grant to buy wine, that is? No, kidding, but wikipedia says Tartaric acid in grapes,etc also played a role in the discovery of chirality, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartaric_acid). And, in the grocery store the SO, i wondered about what cream of tartar really was... To wit: I know what my next grant proposal should be!
Your point 3 is like saying that a car thief (yes! a car analogy, almost!) isn't so bad because he wasn't one of the top 100 most prolific thieves of the year. Your other points aside, that sort of logic - apologist - gets to me since it tries only to win the argument, not provide reasoning. Are you being a devils advocate? Or do you actually think that? Bayer's biggest thing was heroin, and its stayed about the same ever since... drug dealers by anyone's measure.
For the truly wondrous, healing breakthroughs - well, i want industry to be well incentivized, but if "Academic research is funded by drug companies and other corporations" alone, or even predominantly then I am upset. You're telling me we just fought a senseless war and could have invested more money in basic lifesaving research then those companies all, combined?
I only wish "War on Disease" was a catchy as "War on Drugs". Bravo, India.
"The very pressure of zero price and universal availability forces authors to review their career and go and do something they'll get paid for instead...."
Copyright is STRICTLY for the benefit of society. If we didn't think it profited us, we'd just steal all of everyone's crap (and, in some cases, society would vastly benefit; anything having to do with music, not so much). Mark my words, industry: copyright means NOTHING if it's abused and it justifies my attitudes on the subject (y'all know what i mean)
i'm only trotting out the anthropomorphic principle: it only looks like our laws are "average, but nicer then some, maybe harder then others" because we see it from this perspective. Because mathematics can be simplified (that is, an abstraction used to say less with more), i imagine that the other universes would have only a limited number of useful abstractions for the entire range of properties observed. I'd be willing to bet that most if not all of the changes that happened would not require new math, just a new understanding of that math. I believe that to other universes the complexity wouldn't change (here defined as, exponentially, how hard something is) but rather a limited number of abstractions would then cover them all, and if some "comparative universal astro-physicist " were studying it, see a profound symmetry in all the universes, but what the hell do I know ?;-)
i think what the mug rotation shows is that they can associate real items with virtual ones. That's more impressive then the (relatively cheap) projector . with a top down projector, they could not only avoid projecting on/you/, but they could associate real sticky notes with virtual ones! I can think of some cool uses of that kind of rapid, free association of information you could do with it, like reading a book cover to prin a summary next to it. It's all about pointing the projector down, not sideways:)
A mirror doesn't look like a mirror at other wavelengths, and that there is no such thing as a perfect reflector. The rest of your argument aside, that initial exchange you reference meant very, very little.
the basic rule is that neural networks can solve problems without knowing *how* precisely, and digital computers can do anything if you know exactly how. See the difference? You can't compare brains and computers. They are good at diametrically opposed things and always will be. Thats the law (of physics and computation).
while its accurate in that HYBRID processing systems are certainly a bright spot in the future, its amazing to me how many people totally fail to realize that neurons are analog and computers are digital. They solve problems in completely different ways and domains, and there are tasks suited to both but rarely at the same time. For instance, as mentioned on a sibling post, brains ain't gonna have FLOPS. More like FLOMS - bad jokes aside, digital computers are not going to be able to identify orthogonal patterns (they are also FLOMS in this category.
The hope for the future is that optronics give us field programmable neural nets we can load for specific tasks, paired with a general purpose computer for priming and retrieval of datasets.
In the near future, it won't be graphic cards that have the spot light, but neural network cards..
"I believe is all bullshit. I can take my Adderall during the week and stop over the weekend without craving it. The only negative effect of doing this is I end up playing xbox all weekend and nothing gets done around the house."
I do believe anybody using any of those drugs would tell you that - until they can't anymore. I wouldn't predict everyone else's chemistry quite as accurately as you seem to do.
damn, really? I'm one of posters that merely read the last pieces about " Overly Critical Guy" being a shill (which it tries to deny) but somehow with perfect timing gets in here on time to be completely off topic, saying exactly what it's said before (slightly differently), comparing the product about, without any new insights or opinion.. what is it? Automated, or perhaps automated with a human that just gets the responses back to a central inbox where multiple people can respond a bit, make it seem credible, without any real opinion in the matter?
Cause that's how i'd shill, or close to it, with outsourced indian call center labor. Makes ya think.
3/10 - i can't believe you got a bite as long as "yes".. Anyway, it's/Mr. Santorum/ that had the ill-intelligence to refer to homosexuals as like to bestiality, not the parent poster! Sheesh, stay on topic! It's like you don't give two tugs of a dead dogs cock about th' civil rights that ass**** wants to trample.
That doesn't even make sense as a rebuttal. Your waaaaay out on a limb logically.
1) can you prove the animal liked it? If not, best not to decide for it. 2) he has made no statement one way or the other about beastiality - but YOU seem preoccupied. Perhaps you want him to say he's okay with it, to prove your point? That is some twisted logic.
How do you make Santorum == "closed minded homophobe" if you/dont/ say something obvious? Do you think posting the comment to a local corkboard is enough? Something exuberantly topical/had/ to be chosen or we wouldn't be talking about it now - and no "Santorum == homophobe" opinion would have been recorded in history by those who felt deeply offended and have the same right to talk *hit that Santorum does. Literally.
raising children isn't easy and the expenses occur/before/ you have them.. if you remove the benefit one way, you better damned be ready to tell me how you're going to put it back! A "planning to have a baby in two years" tax cut sounds damned silly (and is the same thing as) a tax cut for marriage. It's for the children. The institution is abused, however, when tax benefits are given in the absence of children now or in the future. When children aren't involved a civil agreement (which can be called marriage for all it's worth) will suffice to give one's mate certain legal authorities.
Gay or straight doesn't matter - its the presence or absence of children. Don't be so quick to get rid of benefits you (and me and everyone "normal") is damned happy (aka healthy) to have!
Slashdot Mirror
Galaxy tab 7 inch plus 350 dollars. I actually love this form factor and would not buy anything else - can't fit in coat pocket, no deal. (and SwiftKey x for the win!)
i mean it's big. Really big. So big you could... never mind.
I mean, does it have chemical properties that have confounded the best minds? Er.. the best minds with a grant to buy wine, that is? No, kidding, but wikipedia says Tartaric acid in grapes,etc also played a role in the discovery of chirality, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartaric_acid). And, in the grocery store the SO, i wondered about what cream of tartar really was... To wit: I know what my next grant proposal should be!
the best answer is always "to protect others whose freedom of political and spiritual expression is threatened by your actions". Always.
THERE ARE FOUR CLOCKS! (god, this thread is pedantic torture :)
Your point 3 is like saying that a car thief (yes! a car analogy, almost!) isn't so bad because he wasn't one of the top 100 most prolific thieves of the year. Your other points aside, that sort of logic - apologist - gets to me since it tries only to win the argument, not provide reasoning. Are you being a devils advocate? Or do you actually think that? Bayer's biggest thing was heroin, and its stayed about the same ever since... drug dealers by anyone's measure.
For the truly wondrous, healing breakthroughs - well, i want industry to be well incentivized, but if "Academic research is funded by drug companies and other corporations" alone, or even predominantly then I am upset. You're telling me we just fought a senseless war and could have invested more money in basic lifesaving research then those companies all, combined?
I only wish "War on Disease" was a catchy as "War on Drugs". Bravo, India.
"The very pressure of zero price and universal availability forces authors to review their career and go and do something they'll get paid for instead...."
oh thank god :)
and it seems "awfully convenient" that copyright is now life+75 years or whatever Mickey Mouse crap they're spooning out - what's your point?
Copyright is STRICTLY for the benefit of society. If we didn't think it profited us, we'd just steal all of everyone's crap (and, in some cases, society would vastly benefit; anything having to do with music, not so much). Mark my words, industry: copyright means NOTHING if it's abused and it justifies my attitudes on the subject (y'all know what i mean)
sarcasm meter must be on the fritz again - all i pick up is asshole.
i'm only trotting out the anthropomorphic principle: it only looks like our laws are "average, but nicer then some, maybe harder then others" because we see it from this perspective. Because mathematics can be simplified (that is, an abstraction used to say less with more), i imagine that the other universes would have only a limited number of useful abstractions for the entire range of properties observed. I'd be willing to bet that most if not all of the changes that happened would not require new math, just a new understanding of that math. I believe that to other universes the complexity wouldn't change (here defined as, exponentially, how hard something is) but rather a limited number of abstractions would then cover them all, and if some "comparative universal astro-physicist " were studying it, see a profound symmetry in all the universes, but what the hell do I know ? ;-)
they wouldn't say "what the f*** is that" if they'd seen it their whole lives. WE could be in the complex one. next question! :)
The most obvious is that you want to *ensure* you're not being tracked? Who *doesn't* want one of these, in this world?
i think what the mug rotation shows is that they can associate real items with virtual ones. That's more impressive then the (relatively cheap) projector . with a top down projector, they could not only avoid projecting on /you/, but they could associate real sticky notes with virtual ones! I can think of some cool uses of that kind of rapid, free association of information you could do with it, like reading a book cover to prin a summary next to it. It's all about pointing the projector down, not sideways :)
A mirror doesn't look like a mirror at other wavelengths, and that there is no such thing as a perfect reflector. The rest of your argument aside, that initial exchange you reference meant very, very little.
the basic rule is that neural networks can solve problems without knowing *how* precisely, and digital computers can do anything if you know exactly how. See the difference? You can't compare brains and computers. They are good at diametrically opposed things and always will be. Thats the law (of physics and computation).
while its accurate in that HYBRID processing systems are certainly a bright spot in the future, its amazing to me how many people totally fail to realize that neurons are analog and computers are digital. They solve problems in completely different ways and domains, and there are tasks suited to both but rarely at the same time. For instance, as mentioned on a sibling post, brains ain't gonna have FLOPS. More like FLOMS - bad jokes aside, digital computers are not going to be able to identify orthogonal patterns (they are also FLOMS in this category.
The hope for the future is that optronics give us field programmable neural nets we can load for specific tasks, paired with a general purpose computer for priming and retrieval of datasets.
In the near future, it won't be graphic cards that have the spot light, but neural network cards..
Amen. Preach it. That's well written.
"I believe is all bullshit. I can take my Adderall during the week and stop over the weekend without craving it. The only negative effect of doing this is I end up playing xbox all weekend and nothing gets done around the house."
I do believe anybody using any of those drugs would tell you that - until they can't anymore. I wouldn't predict everyone else's chemistry quite as accurately as you seem to do.
damn, really? I'm one of posters that merely read the last pieces about " Overly Critical Guy" being a shill (which it tries to deny) but somehow with perfect timing gets in here on time to be completely off topic, saying exactly what it's said before (slightly differently), comparing the product about, without any new insights or opinion.. what is it? Automated, or perhaps automated with a human that just gets the responses back to a central inbox where multiple people can respond a bit, make it seem credible, without any real opinion in the matter?
Cause that's how i'd shill, or close to it, with outsourced indian call center labor. Makes ya think.
3/10 - i can't believe you got a bite as long as "yes".. Anyway, it's /Mr. Santorum/ that had the ill-intelligence to refer to homosexuals as like to bestiality, not the parent poster! Sheesh, stay on topic! It's like you don't give two tugs of a dead dogs cock about th' civil rights that ass**** wants to trample.
That doesn't even make sense as a rebuttal. Your waaaaay out on a limb logically.
1) can you prove the animal liked it? If not, best not to decide for it.
2) he has made no statement one way or the other about beastiality - but YOU seem preoccupied. Perhaps you want him to say he's okay with it, to prove your point? That is some twisted logic.
How do you make Santorum == "closed minded homophobe" if you /dont/ say something obvious? Do you think posting the comment to a local corkboard is enough? Something exuberantly topical /had/ to be chosen or we wouldn't be talking about it now - and no "Santorum == homophobe" opinion would have been recorded in history by those who felt deeply offended and have the same right to talk *hit that Santorum does. Literally.
raising children isn't easy and the expenses occur /before/ you have them.. if you remove the benefit one way, you better damned be ready to tell me how you're going to put it back! A "planning to have a baby in two years" tax cut sounds damned silly (and is the same thing as) a tax cut for marriage. It's for the children. The institution is abused, however, when tax benefits are given in the absence of children now or in the future. When children aren't involved a civil agreement (which can be called marriage for all it's worth) will suffice to give one's mate certain legal authorities.
Gay or straight doesn't matter - its the presence or absence of children. Don't be so quick to get rid of benefits you (and me and everyone "normal") is damned happy (aka healthy) to have!
Long variable names are the gift of (oh i don't know..) the 80's? Who in the hell thinks "var a" is better then var dictToStoreFirstAndLastNameLookup?
if you like "var a" better, may i humbly suggest you don't give a rats ass about other people.