I've seen both, and the dub is absolutely horrendous. At least more recent series, like FLCL, were at least acceptable. But the dub for Eva seems like it has a $10 budget or something. It was done at a time when dubbing was not really something people cared about.
I doubt we can hope for a re-dubbing of the series either.
Ignorant, more like it
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I can just see some moron waving a statistic like this around congress... that's all we need. It's hard to enough to explain things when we have accurate information. It's a nightmare when dealing with this kind of hackneyed nonsense.
We barely used our libraries at school, we usually got our information off the web.
This wasn't because the information in the libraries was bad (actually, it had a lot of good stuff), but as high school students we were generally lazy.
Better than college though, where publishers will force people to buy whole new editions of math books just because they changed the order of the problems at the end of each chapter.
This kind of nonsense will just accelerate the collapse of our intellectual property system. It won't be pretty, but maybe it will actually work if we need to start from scratch.
I guess the whole reason I even posted the original comment was that my argument is more on a theoretical level than anything else... I felt it was obvious that that's the argument I was making.
Quite frankly I don't care about spam, nor about whether or not spammers find a work around. All the arguments about how that workaround may be so costly as to deter the spammers... well sure, that may be true, and if it is, fine.
What I am opposed to is the assumption that these problems are somehow impossible to tackle, and they aren't. I'm not just speculating on this issue, as there is evidence to that effect all around us. You're doing these calculations right now, just as you're reading this post. You have to be doing it with a relatively high rate of speed as well, otherwise reading would be impossible.
We can discuss the differences between how the brain works and how a computer works for as long as you want, but one fundamental fact remains true; your brain isn't a magic box. To try and argue that a computer cannot perform the same visual recognition (albeit, perhaps slower) is exactly like arguing that your brain is beyond mathematical definition. It's an argument I don't buy, and it's hardly supported by science.
This is similar to the argument that a computer cannot determine when it's in an infinite loop. Humans, however, can... because they are impatient, and given time, will reexamine the code that is executing.
Naturally we may be inclined to believe that this grants us superiority to the computer. That, while stating some arbitrary facts taken from some textbook somewhere, a computer can never accomplish X objective.
Therein lies the fallacy. The computer does not identify that it is in an infinite loop, nor can it, because it is not given the benefit of looking at the actual code. If a compiler were designed to read into code for things like while(true) loops, which naturally could result in infinite loops, then already you would be cutting back on the instances of these problems.
Determining if there is an infinite loop requires a conscious understanding of the code itself, which is no trivial matter. It is not, however, something that could be deemed impossible.
As with all fields of science, there will be those who say "Well, I haven't seen it yet, so it will never happen"... but skeptics are everywhere, and the presence of skepticism is hardly a measure of credibility... rather, a measure of how pious certain peoples assumptions are.
Solutions are always found in math, and never in magic. Don't underestimate the computer, and more importantly, don't underestimate your own brain. You don't perceive things the way you do 'just because'... and that's what's so exciting.
Slashdot Mirror
Three cheers for Business School's retarded cousin.
And you were there, inside of it, crying.
The "old" graphics..? I'm not sure which game you're talking about, but I preferred the SNES version myself.
You're an idiot, and this patent is stupid, regardless of who filed it.
I've seen both, and the dub is absolutely horrendous. At least more recent series, like FLCL, were at least acceptable. But the dub for Eva seems like it has a $10 budget or something. It was done at a time when dubbing was not really something people cared about. I doubt we can hope for a re-dubbing of the series either.
It's bullshit.
no kidding... I'm amazed that anyone takes this crap seriously.
But nobody is going to question it because it involves quantum mechanics... idiots.
At most
And by evolution, I obviously meant language. But you knew that...
The capacity to develop and understand evolution is something biological. Otherwise, every animal could learn a language just as complex.
PBJ!
I can just see some moron waving a statistic like this around congress... that's all we need. It's hard to enough to explain things when we have accurate information. It's a nightmare when dealing with this kind of hackneyed nonsense.
The least you could do is use some anisotropic filtering for the screenshots.
It's a stupid fad, and it irritates me.
I'm disturbed by your line breaks... they threaten the status quo.
In fact, while we're at it, let's just put the whole thing up on a Fox News Poll... no better justice than majority!
"Well gee... I have free will, right? We _know_ that much... and we know that this stapler doesn't!"
That is the only real thought put into it, and it's as stupid as it seems.
This wasn't because the information in the libraries was bad (actually, it had a lot of good stuff), but as high school students we were generally lazy.
Better than college though, where publishers will force people to buy whole new editions of math books just because they changed the order of the problems at the end of each chapter.
This kind of nonsense will just accelerate the collapse of our intellectual property system. It won't be pretty, but maybe it will actually work if we need to start from scratch.
So I guess it would be stupid of me to question their motives. Hah, what could I have been thinking?
I hear they've been shuffled to Iran now...
Quite frankly I don't care about spam, nor about whether or not spammers find a work around. All the arguments about how that workaround may be so costly as to deter the spammers... well sure, that may be true, and if it is, fine.
What I am opposed to is the assumption that these problems are somehow impossible to tackle, and they aren't. I'm not just speculating on this issue, as there is evidence to that effect all around us. You're doing these calculations right now, just as you're reading this post. You have to be doing it with a relatively high rate of speed as well, otherwise reading would be impossible.
We can discuss the differences between how the brain works and how a computer works for as long as you want, but one fundamental fact remains true; your brain isn't a magic box. To try and argue that a computer cannot perform the same visual recognition (albeit, perhaps slower) is exactly like arguing that your brain is beyond mathematical definition. It's an argument I don't buy, and it's hardly supported by science.
I'm not entirely sure that it does... read the post about infinite loops above.
Naturally we may be inclined to believe that this grants us superiority to the computer. That, while stating some arbitrary facts taken from some textbook somewhere, a computer can never accomplish X objective.
Therein lies the fallacy. The computer does not identify that it is in an infinite loop, nor can it, because it is not given the benefit of looking at the actual code. If a compiler were designed to read into code for things like while(true) loops, which naturally could result in infinite loops, then already you would be cutting back on the instances of these problems.
Determining if there is an infinite loop requires a conscious understanding of the code itself, which is no trivial matter. It is not, however, something that could be deemed impossible.
As with all fields of science, there will be those who say "Well, I haven't seen it yet, so it will never happen"... but skeptics are everywhere, and the presence of skepticism is hardly a measure of credibility... rather, a measure of how pious certain peoples assumptions are.
Solutions are always found in math, and never in magic. Don't underestimate the computer, and more importantly, don't underestimate your own brain. You don't perceive things the way you do 'just because'... and that's what's so exciting.