>>> What do you want everyone to swim naked? ME TOO!!!! >>>
It might get interesting when the nude male swimmers get distracted by the nude female swimmers on the poolside and suddenly encounter a lot of hydrodynamic resistance...
So you're rejecting everything in Wikipedia just because of some obvious joke articles?
Imagine you had heard about those cloned didgeridoos not from Wikipedia, but rather from a friend or a family member or someone else you trusted. Would you believe it?
Of course not. You have (I assume) the basic common sense to identify patent nonsense, and can do so whether the source is trusted or not.
Or suppose you actually believe the story of baby didgeridoos because, after all, it was in an e-mail from your father. Then you find out later that it was a big joke. Do you stop trusting your father forever after that?
Of course not. You have the the basic common sense to identify earnest, essentially true information.
Certainly, there are areas in Wikipedia where the factual information can be incorrect, as shown in the Siegenthaler article controversy last year. But then that level of misinformation is probably no greater than that of the internet in general, the news media, or your friends and family.
>> Things like the Bill of Rights being rendered completely unreadable by the next generation. "The Federalist Papers" would be locked away by the education of the masses, and none of the political writing of the per Republican era would be accessible unless some "deviant" decided to translate it... >>
Sure, and they'll end up like the epic of Beowulf and the works of Chaucer, which as we all know, are in an unintelligible language, and are thus lost forever, never read by a single person today...
In this day and age, nothing ever written in human history will remain untranslated for long.
It obeys without fail the instructions conveyed to it in machine code, and if those instructions tell it to erase your data or curse at your mother or set the CPU on fire, then by God that is what will happen.
Wait a minute, you just said it's 100% deterministic. God doesn't come into play at all.
>It's not a very relevant skill to most academic pursuits.
Maybe not for most academic pursuits. But speaking just for myself, it's the most productive activity I've found during hour-long meetings in the working world.
And finally, your argument that "weaker individuals aren't killed off" by traditional perils like disease and conflict simply fails to apply in the third world, where the majority of the human race lives. Give them a few more generations, and they will be superior to your soft white first-world ass.
Third-worlders already are evolutionarily "superior" to white first-worlders -- by their selection criteria, i.e. the genetic makeup of a "white first-worlder" is likely to be disadvantageous when placed in the third-world environment. And vice versa. This almost goes by definition. Each adapted to their own environment, and it's meaningless to say that one is superior to another unless they are in the same environment.
The annual car inspections force you to buy a new one even if you're satisfied with the one you have. And the annual inspections in Japan, as in other countries, are for a legitimate reason: public safety in preventing accidents and pollution.
But the government's not subjecting televisions, washing machines, and computers to annual inspections. You can keep using what you have as long as you want. So it is quite different.
On the whole, software (and in its most trendy current incarnation, web services) IS the only area in technology --where you can realistically start a successful company today with three guys working in a basement and $20,000 seed money. It's much harder to start a company making digital cameras, HDTVs, or automobiles these days.
The 8MP (or whatever it may end up being) limit is defined by human perception. If no human being can distinguish between a photograph displayed at resolution A and the same photo displayed at resolution B which is greater by some factor, then B is more than adequate and nobody's going to want or need anything beyond that, even if it's techonologically feasible.
In digital audio, we really have reached the limit of human perception, which is probably around 320KB/s, 48kHz. There is probably no technical problem in creating digital audio at 4MB/s, 1Mhz, but you don't hear any audio engineers asking for it.
No similar limit of perception applies to our ability to use and store information.
>>> Doesn't everyone at some point end up cropping their digital photos, and hitting the jaggies? The main reason I'd like more (and more and more) resolution is because I don't *know* how big I want that photo to be shown in the future, and I don't know if cousin Vinny has a hilarious expression on his face that will be lost in the haze at 5MP but might be a treasure at 10MP... >>>
I think most manufacturers as well as consumers agree that an add-on telephoto lens is a more economical and sensible solution to this problem than overloading on resolution.
For die-hard Minolta fans, it's an emulsional issue, but they're just focusing their product line. With the right market exposure, good things should develop.
Or more likely, the position was filled by someone who had the basic common sense to understand that: -Correct punctuation and grammar makes a difference in how people perceive one's intelligence and diligence. -Smugly justifying one's lack of above skills on scientific grounds turns people off even more. -Being able to work and communciate well with people can be more important than an advanced degree.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>
What do you want everyone to swim naked? ME TOO!!!!
>>>
It might get interesting when the nude male swimmers get distracted by the nude female swimmers on the poolside and suddenly encounter a lot of hydrodynamic resistance...
So you're rejecting everything in Wikipedia just because of some obvious joke articles?
Imagine you had heard about those cloned didgeridoos not from Wikipedia, but rather from a friend or a family member or someone else you trusted. Would you believe it?
Of course not. You have (I assume) the basic common sense to identify patent nonsense, and can do so whether the source is trusted or not.
Or suppose you actually believe the story of baby didgeridoos because, after all, it was in an e-mail from your father. Then you find out later that it was a big joke. Do you stop trusting your father forever after that?
Of course not. You have the the basic common sense to identify earnest, essentially true information.
Certainly, there are areas in Wikipedia where the factual information can be incorrect, as shown in the Siegenthaler article controversy last year. But then that level of misinformation is probably no greater than that of the internet in general, the news media, or your friends and family.
>>
Things like the Bill of Rights being rendered completely unreadable by the next generation. "The Federalist Papers" would be locked away by the education of the masses, and none of the political writing of the per Republican era would be accessible unless some "deviant" decided to translate it...
>>
Sure, and they'll end up like the epic of Beowulf and the works of Chaucer, which as we all know, are in an unintelligible language, and are thus lost forever, never read by a single person today...
In this day and age, nothing ever written in human history will remain untranslated for long.
like the one of encountering someone in a narrow path where only one person can pass at a time.
Gee, thanks for the helpful analogy. I would have never been able to picture the situation of collision-avoidance without this illustrative example...
It obeys without fail the instructions conveyed to it in machine code, and if those instructions tell it to erase your data or curse at your mother or set the CPU on fire, then by God that is what will happen.
Wait a minute, you just said it's 100% deterministic. God doesn't come into play at all.
Burns: Oh, stop cogitating, Steinmetz and use an open faced club! The sand wedge!
Homer: Mmmm, open-faced club sandwich.
Perhaps this one (just a few posts before)?
0 81583
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182444&cid=15
Photoshop is to drawing as Dreamweaver is to systems programming.
>It's not a very relevant skill to most academic pursuits.
Maybe not for most academic pursuits. But speaking just for myself, it's the most productive activity I've found during hour-long meetings in the working world.
It's old news. And for once the U.S. Congress was ahead of public opinion:
1 8/1158240
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/
And finally, your argument that "weaker individuals aren't killed off" by traditional perils like disease and conflict simply fails to apply in the third world, where the majority of the human race lives. Give them a few more generations, and they will be superior to your soft white first-world ass.
Third-worlders already are evolutionarily "superior" to white first-worlders -- by their selection criteria, i.e. the genetic makeup of a "white first-worlder" is likely to be disadvantageous when placed in the third-world environment. And vice versa. This almost goes by definition. Each adapted to their own environment, and it's meaningless to say that one is superior to another unless they are in the same environment.
Just tag a "-Wikipedia" to the search to filter out Wikipedia and all the mirror sites, which carry a statement attributing the content to Wikipedia.
The annual car inspections force you to buy a new one even if you're satisfied with the one you have. And the annual inspections in Japan, as in other countries, are for a legitimate reason: public safety in preventing accidents and pollution.
But the government's not subjecting televisions, washing machines, and computers to annual inspections. You can keep using what you have as long as you want. So it is quite different.
On the whole, software (and in its most trendy current incarnation, web services) IS the only area in technology --where you can realistically start a successful company today with three guys working in a basement and $20,000 seed money. It's much harder to start a company making digital cameras, HDTVs, or automobiles these days.
No, no, no, Manber was coaxed whereas Tennenhouse was twisted-paired.
Segundo opción e mas fácil, porque Quito tiene uno aeropuerto internacional, pero la luna tiene nada!
This really is different from the 640K limit.
The 8MP (or whatever it may end up being) limit is defined by human perception. If no human being can distinguish between a photograph displayed at resolution A and the same photo displayed at resolution B which is greater by some factor, then B is more than adequate and nobody's going to want or need anything beyond that, even if it's techonologically feasible.
In digital audio, we really have reached the limit of human perception, which is probably around 320KB/s, 48kHz. There is probably no technical problem in creating digital audio at 4MB/s, 1Mhz, but you don't hear any audio engineers asking for it.
No similar limit of perception applies to our ability to use and store information.
>>> ...
Doesn't everyone at some point end up cropping their digital photos, and hitting the jaggies? The main reason I'd like more (and more and more) resolution is because I don't *know* how big I want that photo to be shown in the future, and I don't know if cousin Vinny has a hilarious expression on his face that will be lost in the haze at 5MP but might be a treasure at 10MP
>>>
I think most manufacturers as well as consumers agree that an add-on telephoto lens is a more economical and sensible solution to this problem than overloading on resolution.
"Canon's S2 IS can even film and snap stills simultaneously, thanks to separate shutter and start-stop buttons."
Can even what?
Am I the only one who has the same vague feelings of discomfort about Maciej Ceglowski?
Clueless moderator! This was the funniest/punniest of the bunch.
For die-hard Minolta fans, it's an emulsional issue, but they're just focusing their product line. With the right market exposure, good things should develop.
Or more likely, the position was filled by someone who had the basic common sense to understand that:
-Correct punctuation and grammar makes a difference in how people perceive one's intelligence and diligence.
-Smugly justifying one's lack of above skills on scientific grounds turns people off even more.
-Being able to work and communciate well with people can be more important than an advanced degree.
So in other words, recognizing keywords and focusing on conversation based on them serves no useful purpose at all. Yet they do it? Why?
Another thing it relieves you of is extra spending cash!