"The only thing we get out of it is the false sense of security that such a person is no longer a threat to us."
Hardly a false sense of security about said person.
"...what punishment for the Russian command and control that allowed the kids to get caught in the crossfire? The terrorists didn't do all the shooting."
Don't be an asshat. The terrorist put the kids there and there was subsequently nothing that could be done to get them safely out of the way. That was the entire point of those bastards... hiding behind children.
Wikipedia is chock full of names of those who have contributed. You should actually go and look at their articles. I think you fill find them very useful and factual, not at all brimming with censorship.
Sincerely, Oligonicella
P.S. Mob-mentality censorship would require anonymous activity, wouldn't it? Just asking.
And Wikipedia provides a set of rules and guidelines for posting on theirs. If you break them, go cry to your momma. If you didn't (and you should provide an example, instead of heresay), then they did.
I have an intense interest in molecular evolution. I try to stay current on theory and actual research. Just my thing.
My point is that I access and read a butt-load of "pedigreed" papers. Gusss what? They're loaded to the eye-teeth with opinion, half-assed research, and error. Their citations are near-impossible to find.
The last sentence displays ignorance about Wikipedia's versioning.
"Sufficiently advanced" is a relative and personal opinion.
To me, it would mean anyone at our level or slightly above. Be definition, they wouldn't know of all intelligent species, and so wouldn't already "have" communicated.
Those advanced to the point of knowing all "intelligent" species in their area might feasably be on the level of us-to-ants. Do we try to communicate with ants? No. Why? No basis.
That depends. If they are posting "beacons" for others to see, they probably (intelligently) would shoot for the largest audience. These beacons wouldn't use the transmission medium of the "advanced" messages, just provide a way of focusing attention in the appropriate area. Then, those who found those beacons could winnow down as far as their technologies allowed them.
Kind of a self-limiting process on who who want to communicate with on what level, as well.
I think you're looking at this wrong. This is Slashdot. The people criticizing this guy aren't doing so because his study was only about English readers, they're doing it because they didn't do the study and they have to find something to pick apart.
Actually, looking inward at the way I read text, the word shape theory is not full of crap, but over-extended. I find my eyes performing the same jumping as the article suggests (having known this for a long time) and also find that the smaller words like old and the (especially those that are most frequent) are recognized in the "peripheral" of my targets by shape.
That would be something the computer tracking would not be able to figure out and was somewhat hinted at in the article.
Extremely interesting read, saved to savor later.
'word shape... might be satisfactorily described in terms of the letters in their positions.'
Anyone else find this elementary?
MST was done on a shoe string, as can be told by anyone watching it. They are not a big corporation. Unless you count Alamo Drafthouse in Austin as a big corp too.
"the guy who sued Fogerty for sounding like Fogerty"
Read you own link. He wasn't sued for "sounding" like, he was sued for plagerization, which is a perfectly valid thing to sue over. He lost, by the way.
From link:
"In 1985 when John Fogerty made his comeback album Centerfield he include a song called Zanz Kant Danz. The first line of lyric in the song is; 'Vanz can't dance, but he'll steal your money'. Zaentz sued Fogerty and the song title was subsequently changed to Vanz Kant Danz on later pressings of the album. Fogerty was also sued for plagiarizing himself as Fantasy's lawyers thought that The Old Man Down The Road from the same album was Run Through The Jungle with new lyrics. As Fogerty did not own the rights to his old songs they believed this was depriving Fantasy of much needed royalties. Fogerty won the lawsuit."
The difference between stealing bandwidth and forcing the library to pay more for bandwidth is pedantic, at best. The 'patron' who caused this wouldn't be coughing up the change, would he?
But, he was not playing by their rules. Did he notify them he was logging on? Did he cruise sites that were not allowed on library internet equipment? How could the librarians be sure? He was not harassed.
Slashdot Mirror
"The only thing we get out of it is the false sense of security that such a person is no longer a threat to us."
Hardly a false sense of security about said person.
"...what punishment for the Russian command and control that allowed the kids to get caught in the crossfire? The terrorists didn't do all the shooting."
Don't be an asshat. The terrorist put the kids there and there was subsequently nothing that could be done to get them safely out of the way. That was the entire point of those bastards... hiding behind children.
Did you perchance miss the part where the entity putting the privacy-invading device on the car was an individual ?
A black-box for recording "flight" data would be under gov supervision. This guy couldn't be.
As to your "hypothetical". You're going to bribe some minimum wage jockey to give you positioning data all day long, in real time?
Straw, just straw.
"Threatens you with all sorts of things."
Like what, exactly? Seems like an anonymous libel you gots going there.
Dear Anonymous:
Wikipedia is chock full of names of those who have contributed. You should actually go and look at their articles. I think you fill find them very useful and factual, not at all brimming with censorship.
Sincerely, Oligonicella
P.S. Mob-mentality censorship would require anonymous activity, wouldn't it? Just asking.
And Wikipedia provides a set of rules and guidelines for posting on theirs. If you break them, go cry to your momma. If you didn't (and you should provide an example, instead of heresay), then they did.
Got an example?
I have an intense interest in molecular evolution. I try to stay current on theory and actual research. Just my thing.
My point is that I access and read a butt-load of "pedigreed" papers. Gusss what? They're loaded to the eye-teeth with opinion, half-assed research, and error. Their citations are near-impossible to find.
The last sentence displays ignorance about Wikipedia's versioning.
Yes, it is, and that's the point. Being "contactable all the time" is just friggin' stupid.
There's not enough time in the day and not enough patience in the soul to deal with all the world's idiots.
And, being idiots, they won't self-limit their impact upon your life. Sounds like a fine application of a little selfishness to me.
Try providing a logical argument as to why he shouldn't?
Palladium, tritium? Even if they can consistently get more heat out than energy in, that only describes the current event.
It does not describe the entire economic input. That palladium and tritium has to come from somewhere, and it's expensive.
Until this can be done with non-exotic materials, it will probably be a push as its worthiness.
Ummm, baloney.
"Sufficiently advanced" is a relative and personal opinion.
To me, it would mean anyone at our level or slightly above. Be definition, they wouldn't know of all intelligent species, and so wouldn't already "have" communicated.
Those advanced to the point of knowing all "intelligent" species in their area might feasably be on the level of us-to-ants. Do we try to communicate with ants? No. Why? No basis.
That depends. If they are posting "beacons" for others to see, they probably (intelligently) would shoot for the largest audience. These beacons wouldn't use the transmission medium of the "advanced" messages, just provide a way of focusing attention in the appropriate area. Then, those who found those beacons could winnow down as far as their technologies allowed them.
Kind of a self-limiting process on who who want to communicate with on what level, as well.
'...but a planet around another star might well have natural phenomena capable of emitting EM signals that we view as "must be artificial"...'
Only if physics works differently there. That was the point, unless truly wierd shit is happening in the universe, it doesn't.
That, or they internalize the dialogue into something abstract. It's not as if those areas of the brain go away when you're deaf.
"The rest of us are Slashdot members."
Please read the commentary on this article in toto. You may need to revise your estimates down.
I think you're looking at this wrong. This is Slashdot. The people criticizing this guy aren't doing so because his study was only about English readers, they're doing it because they didn't do the study and they have to find something to pick apart.
Neither the eye, nor the human brain, works like a computer. "Small cache" is not a relevant term or concept.
Actually, looking inward at the way I read text, the word shape theory is not full of crap, but over-extended. I find my eyes performing the same jumping as the article suggests (having known this for a long time) and also find that the smaller words like old and the (especially those that are most frequent) are recognized in the "peripheral" of my targets by shape.
... might be satisfactorily described in terms of the letters in their positions.'
That would be something the computer tracking would not be able to figure out and was somewhat hinted at in the article.
Extremely interesting read, saved to savor later.
'word shape
Anyone else find this elementary?
"the big corporation"
Why does this phrase have to come up?
MST was done on a shoe string, as can be told by anyone watching it. They are not a big corporation. Unless you count Alamo Drafthouse in Austin as a big corp too.
Then it's two big corporations, eh?
"the guy who sued Fogerty for sounding like Fogerty"
Read you own link. He wasn't sued for "sounding" like, he was sued for plagerization, which is a perfectly valid thing to sue over. He lost, by the way.
From link:
"In 1985 when John Fogerty made his comeback album Centerfield he include a song called Zanz Kant Danz. The first line of lyric in the song is; 'Vanz can't dance, but he'll steal your money'. Zaentz sued Fogerty and the song title was subsequently changed to Vanz Kant Danz on later pressings of the album. Fogerty was also sued for plagiarizing himself as Fantasy's lawyers thought that The Old Man Down The Road from the same album was Run Through The Jungle with new lyrics. As Fogerty did not own the rights to his old songs they believed this was depriving Fantasy of much needed royalties. Fogerty won the lawsuit."
Why, oh why in the world would I even want to use Excel, PPT, or especially Outlook? That is no reason at all.
Not an issue. It was the sending.
That's an even worse analogy, not better. The class is rightfully using bandwidth. The destruction of property is not an issue in the library case.
The difference between stealing bandwidth and forcing the library to pay more for bandwidth is pedantic, at best. The 'patron' who caused this wouldn't be coughing up the change, would he?
Unless they have rules about the number of people using it at once. Then it would be theft of bandwidth/signal.
But, he was not playing by their rules. Did he notify them he was logging on? Did he cruise sites that were not allowed on library internet equipment? How could the librarians be sure? He was not harassed.
And, how else would the officer have been sure he wasn't just flipping it off when approached? He was caught once.