Ever seen someone unaccustomed to videogames playing a platform game, and when they want the character to jump, they wave the controller in an arc? That will actually work now. I believe this is the entirety of Nintendo's reasoning.
Please let it not have jumped the shark
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 1
These laws, while laudible, can't be "programmed" as is, making the task much more complex.
This is by far the biggest practical problem with the Three Laws Of Robotics. Before you can even program them in, you need to find rigid and absolutely unambiguous definitions for, among other terms, "robot", "harm", "obey", "protect", "existence" and "human being", and provide the robot with means of recognising these things when it sees them. This is significantly more difficult than building the robot itself, whatever the robot's complexity - it may well be impossible.
Re:This has possibilities
on
Black Review
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Feh. You Slashdotters and your shameless self-promotion.
Lisa's comment is one of many, many jokes on the fact that Springfield has no definite location. If you're confused by the comment, you're missing the point.
Reasonably, all we can sensibly conclude from "Flaming Moe's" is that Springfield is not the city of St. Louis, which we knew already.
On the other hand, the episode "Simpson Tide" clearly shows Homer departing, by submarine, from Springfield Harbour on the WEST coast of the United States and heading towards Russia, thus proving conclusively that Springfield is wherever the writers want it to be for that episode.
I maintain the Where Is Springfield? file at snpp.com and I can say for sure that you are right: people ALWAYS think that Springfield is based on THEIR state, or the nearest Springfield to where they live. I've had emails from all over.
This is because they are more familiar with their own locality than anywhere else in America, so they see more similarities between the town on the television show and their home than any other place in America.
In reality this shows the success of the writers of the Simpsons to make Springfield, as much as possible, a reflection of all of America rolled into a single town. The name "Springfield" was chosen precisely because it was so common, because it meant Springfield could be literally anywhere in the mainland USA. Everybody sees things they recognise in the town of Springfield, and in the people of Springfield, and in the Simpsons themselves, which is part of the reason why the show became so very very popular.
Finally, for the record: Springfield is not based on a real Springfield. It is not based on ANY real town. At all. Thanks.
That phone number is given so it fits in with established continuity (an event which is practically unique in Simpsons history, frankly) - in the earlier episode "A Tale Of Two Springfields", Springfield was divided into two area codes, 636 and 939. 636 - which includes the Simpsons' house - is in reality in Missouri, while 939 is in Puerto Rico. Interestingly, while Missouri does contain a Springfield, that Springfield is in the 417 area code.
Had Homer given the number 1-939-555-XXXX then I doubt we could reasonably conclude Springfield was in Puerto Rico.
Thank you for spreading the word about that episode. I maintain that article and I get people emailing me after watching that episode ALL THE TIME. As if I wouldn't have seen that episode, as well as EVERY OTHER EPISODE THERE IS.
The other "Kentucky" moment which the grandparent may be referring to is in "Sweets And Sour Marge" when somebody mentions going "south of the border" and Homer says "you mean Tennessee?" Pedantically, 1) Tennessee borders Kentucky, Missouri and Virginia to the north, although Kentucky is the main one and 2) doesn't it seem rather more likely that Homer might not know his geography?
In case you're worried, hi, I'm from the present and I placed a temporal barrier at the beginning of 2006 preventing anybody from travelling back beyond 2006-01-01, which is why there have been no time travellers around until now. Quite a lot of them will be probably popping up over the next few months, having ricocheted off the barrier at various speeds. Just a heads-up.
No, I think that just makes you a music manufacturer. You occupy the same position as any other CD pressing plant.
In this context I believe it is the actual physical material which is considered pornography, not the images themselves. It's like distinction between a story in a newspaper, and the actual, physical ink on the page. In this respect he did indeed "create child pornography".
The real issue I see here is: how tangible must the copy be to be considered the creation of a new copy? Surely if the data is on his hard drive then that counts, by this measure. So what if someone innocent blunders on to a child porn site by accident and backs out immediately, leaving a few images in his internet cache? What if he deletes his cache, but still leaves the data itself all but intact on his hard drive? Does the pattern of illuminated phosphors on his monitor count? Does the information in the modem wire count?
Would it help if I accelerated the Earth's rotation to six times its current rate? Because I have the machine all built already, and right now it's just collecting dust.
I disagree. I would prefer a standardised interface as it means I wouldn't have to figure everything out all over again every time I buy e.g. a new DVD.
Hurm. There are probably more efficient nuclear strategies, to be sure. Gravitational fields are tricky wossnames - dropping something into the Sun isn't anywhere near as easy as you think. Because the Earth is moving, it stays in orbit and never falls in. Dropping into the Sun means you need to stop it moving along its orbit. That means a hell of a lot of kinetic energy of the Earth in motion has to GO somewhere (just as a lot of KE needs to COME FROM somewhere if you want to hurl the Earth into space). It turns out the first value is larger than the second. The happy medium, of course, is to hurl the Earth outwards - into Jupiter. Slingshots are more complicated. You could probably save a little energy by passing the Earth in front of Venus (thus slowing Earth and accelerating Venus) and the same for Mercury, but as for how much... I don't know. You'd need to get the Earth there in the first place too, of course.
As the author of that page I'm going to have to step in here and say no, the grandparent is probably correct. The entire point of "How to destroy the Earth" is that it is ourselves we need to worry about, not our planet or even necessarily its ecosystem. Rendering the Earth uninhabitable for human beings is absolutely trivial compared to destroying it and in some respects we are well on our way to inadvertently achieving it. The current global nuclear stockpile would probably easily do the trick.
For those of you who are more interesting in accurately naming your MP3s, I strongly recommend Jim Willsher's Bulk Rename Utility. It's amazingly powerful. Good for all kinds of files, not just MP3s.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever seen someone unaccustomed to videogames playing a platform game, and when they want the character to jump, they wave the controller in an arc? That will actually work now. I believe this is the entirety of Nintendo's reasoning.
Pleasepleasepleaseplease!
We're definitely talking about Australia here.
This is by far the biggest practical problem with the Three Laws Of Robotics. Before you can even program them in, you need to find rigid and absolutely unambiguous definitions for, among other terms, "robot", "harm", "obey", "protect", "existence" and "human being", and provide the robot with means of recognising these things when it sees them. This is significantly more difficult than building the robot itself, whatever the robot's complexity - it may well be impossible.
Feh. You Slashdotters and your shameless self-promotion.
...Wait, that's my site!
Lisa's comment is one of many, many jokes on the fact that Springfield has no definite location. If you're confused by the comment, you're missing the point.
Reasonably, all we can sensibly conclude from "Flaming Moe's" is that Springfield is not the city of St. Louis, which we knew already.
On the other hand, the episode "Simpson Tide" clearly shows Homer departing, by submarine, from Springfield Harbour on the WEST coast of the United States and heading towards Russia, thus proving conclusively that Springfield is wherever the writers want it to be for that episode.
I maintain the Where Is Springfield? file at snpp.com and I can say for sure that you are right: people ALWAYS think that Springfield is based on THEIR state, or the nearest Springfield to where they live. I've had emails from all over.
This is because they are more familiar with their own locality than anywhere else in America, so they see more similarities between the town on the television show and their home than any other place in America.
In reality this shows the success of the writers of the Simpsons to make Springfield, as much as possible, a reflection of all of America rolled into a single town. The name "Springfield" was chosen precisely because it was so common, because it meant Springfield could be literally anywhere in the mainland USA. Everybody sees things they recognise in the town of Springfield, and in the people of Springfield, and in the Simpsons themselves, which is part of the reason why the show became so very very popular.
Finally, for the record: Springfield is not based on a real Springfield. It is not based on ANY real town. At all. Thanks.
That phone number is given so it fits in with established continuity (an event which is practically unique in Simpsons history, frankly) - in the earlier episode "A Tale Of Two Springfields", Springfield was divided into two area codes, 636 and 939. 636 - which includes the Simpsons' house - is in reality in Missouri, while 939 is in Puerto Rico. Interestingly, while Missouri does contain a Springfield, that Springfield is in the 417 area code.
Had Homer given the number 1-939-555-XXXX then I doubt we could reasonably conclude Springfield was in Puerto Rico.
Thank you for spreading the word about that episode. I maintain that article and I get people emailing me after watching that episode ALL THE TIME. As if I wouldn't have seen that episode, as well as EVERY OTHER EPISODE THERE IS.
The other "Kentucky" moment which the grandparent may be referring to is in "Sweets And Sour Marge" when somebody mentions going "south of the border" and Homer says "you mean Tennessee?" Pedantically, 1) Tennessee borders Kentucky, Missouri and Virginia to the north, although Kentucky is the main one and 2) doesn't it seem rather more likely that Homer might not know his geography?
Washington D.C. already is an MMO. Except for the O.
In case you're worried, hi, I'm from the present and I placed a temporal barrier at the beginning of 2006 preventing anybody from travelling back beyond 2006-01-01, which is why there have been no time travellers around until now. Quite a lot of them will be probably popping up over the next few months, having ricocheted off the barrier at various speeds. Just a heads-up.
I guess it depends if you're a pyrophiliac or not.
No, I think that just makes you a music manufacturer. You occupy the same position as any other CD pressing plant.
In this context I believe it is the actual physical material which is considered pornography, not the images themselves. It's like distinction between a story in a newspaper, and the actual, physical ink on the page. In this respect he did indeed "create child pornography".
The real issue I see here is: how tangible must the copy be to be considered the creation of a new copy? Surely if the data is on his hard drive then that counts, by this measure. So what if someone innocent blunders on to a child porn site by accident and backs out immediately, leaving a few images in his internet cache? What if he deletes his cache, but still leaves the data itself all but intact on his hard drive? Does the pattern of illuminated phosphors on his monitor count? Does the information in the modem wire count?
Would it help if I accelerated the Earth's rotation to six times its current rate? Because I have the machine all built already, and right now it's just collecting dust.
The driver's licence thing is justifiable. You have it to prove your capability to pilot a chunk of metal at dangerously high speeds, not who you are.
That would be everything from Sunday 5th February 2006 onwards... right?
I'm waiting for Apple's iX: the future of something which doesn't do anything, today.
I disagree. I would prefer a standardised interface as it means I wouldn't have to figure everything out all over again every time I buy e.g. a new DVD.
Hurm. There are probably more efficient nuclear strategies, to be sure. Gravitational fields are tricky wossnames - dropping something into the Sun isn't anywhere near as easy as you think. Because the Earth is moving, it stays in orbit and never falls in. Dropping into the Sun means you need to stop it moving along its orbit. That means a hell of a lot of kinetic energy of the Earth in motion has to GO somewhere (just as a lot of KE needs to COME FROM somewhere if you want to hurl the Earth into space). It turns out the first value is larger than the second. The happy medium, of course, is to hurl the Earth outwards - into Jupiter. Slingshots are more complicated. You could probably save a little energy by passing the Earth in front of Venus (thus slowing Earth and accelerating Venus) and the same for Mercury, but as for how much... I don't know. You'd need to get the Earth there in the first place too, of course.
As the author of that page I'm going to have to step in here and say no, the grandparent is probably correct. The entire point of "How to destroy the Earth" is that it is ourselves we need to worry about, not our planet or even necessarily its ecosystem. Rendering the Earth uninhabitable for human beings is absolutely trivial compared to destroying it and in some respects we are well on our way to inadvertently achieving it. The current global nuclear stockpile would probably easily do the trick.
Cheers,
~Sam Hughes
"...Did it work?"
For those of you who are more interesting in accurately naming your MP3s, I strongly recommend Jim Willsher's Bulk Rename Utility. It's amazingly powerful. Good for all kinds of files, not just MP3s.
But I'm lazy!
Although I do agree that classifying music by genre is a pointless exercise.
That's a crazy idea. Here's a fact that will MAKE you crazy: neither the latest versions of IE nor Firefox render valid code correctly.
The problems with floating divs alone have driven me to insanity.