intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator
This quote from the original post is so false. (the "supernatural creator" part.) I wish people would get a clue about ID before they criticize it. In ID, the nature of the designer(s) is NOT specified. It is simply that life on earth bears marks of having been designed, and where this design came from --- whether (natural, physical) aliens, or the Metaclurians, or Allah, or whoever --- is not included. It is NOT necessarily a religious enterprise, even if many of the participants are religious people. (Some are atheists...)
What do you make of the recolorization examples then? Did they make the kid wear different-striped clothes and get in the exact same position?
On the other hand, one can see that many of the pictures have VERY finely-detailed scribbles, like in the picture of the kid with facepaint or the one with girl with the necklace of red beads. I was starting to wonder exactly how fine the "scribbles" had to go to get results of that quality, e.g. perhaps there are even more single-pixel scribbles all over the place that I just wasn't noticing?
Hi. I'm a songwriter and recording artist.
Do I still get my 6 cents every time my song is played commercially? Since this 5 cent price applies to "private" downloads, then I'm guessing it's probably just regular sales royalties that are "affected" (and by that I mean "wiped out").
Anybody know?
I rented the first season. Turned it off after it seemed I was watching an excuse for soft-core porn... then turned it back on again after a while of having nothing else to watch. (And you know that morbid-fascination thing?) It's really abominable. I'm glad you didn't get marked "Troll."...with that said... the blonde cylon chick is super-hot.
Actually when one RTFAs, one finds that Google actually has this to say:
Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant directories to which a site can be submitted. However, there are a few unethical SEOs who have given the industry a black eye through their overly aggressive marketing efforts and their attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results.
Sounds like they're saying some rather positive things about the industry as a whole.
A friend's SEO company (RefreshWeb.com) has this ad:
Who says we're the top Austin Internet marketing agency? Our national clients. Our friends. Oh, and...Google. Go ahead, make our day: search on "Austin Internet marketing agency."
I like the self-referential nature of the humor in this.
Today, we have someone from Microsoft who says they haven't installed Firefox. This is decried as shameful -- how dare he criticize the application if he hasn't tried it?
I think you're probably missing the point of the criticisms other/.ers have posted. The point is not that, "Oh, here's a Microsoft user who hasn't installed Firefox." Big deal. No, the point is that here we have a software executive who's making public statements, assuring people about the competitiveness of his product against a contender that he hasn't even TRIED.
This are the tactics of a desperate but incompentant person. The fact that this article came out at all shows that Microsoft is "taking" the threat very seriously, and yet they're not TREATING seriously by actually doing their homework on Firefox. Duh...
While I disagree about the chances that the provisional & absentee votes will make up for the 150,000-vote lead Bush has over Kerry in Ohio....
I do agree about Kerry taking the high road. I am very pleasantly surprised. Very classy of Kerry to do this.
Hey, that's an interesting point. I wasn't trying to say that making it mandatory to extend benefits to heterosexual partners is "right". Is this currently mandatory? Maybe I don't have the energy to try to oppose breaks & benefits for heterosexual couples --- one must pick ones causes --- but if you feel strongly enough about it, then I encourage you to get involved in the political process over this issue.
If it's not, meaning that it's voluntary on the part of the benefit-giver, then I'm ok with that. I'm even okay with companies or whoever offering benefits to gay spouses! I'm sure many companies would see this as a way of attracting (gay) employees. Which is fine for them.
What I DON'T want is a law that says I have to extend benefits to gay spouses, or even a law that says "if you're (voluntarily) extending benefits to heterosexual couples, then you also are required to extend those benefits to homosexual couples." Such a law would violate my First Amendment rights.
Hey, I don't think the article gave us many details about these robots. Will they be autonamous in the sense of doing their own
navigation and such (like the robots in that contest out the desrt earlier this year), or will they be entirely controlled from earth?
I suppose, with the moon only be a quarter million miles from the earth, a one-to-two second time delay in controlling the robot may not be worth the expense of putting in fancy on-board AI, but...anybody know more about these robots?
Hi, I looked through posts and didn't see any discussion of this:
When I was a grad student in physics back in the late '90s, I remember seeing some papers posted on a bulletin board about a study of coins falling in water. This system, and the system of pages falling in air clearly have some similarities that, of course, the popular press isn't going to bother pointing out.
But, fyi, the falling paper problem is still more complicated, since the air affects not only the motion of the paper, but its shape as well.
One thing that wasn't clear from the article, however, were what sort of computational techniques they are using. Solving Navier-Stokes is extremely difficult, and subject to all kinds of artifacts of the computational setup (e.g. discretization scale, location of boundary conditions,, etc..) Not that I'm doubting the editors of PRL, just that it would have been nice to see a bit more detail.
Hopefully not. This is why I support the Federal Marriage Amendment, just so that it's made explicit that the government of one state will not be forced to honor the gay marriages and civil unions allowed by another state.
Please do not forget (or violate) the civil rights of people (voters, business owners, etc) who would be compelled against their own consciences & religions to accept, bless, and fund gay marriages based on the decisions of activist judges.
Before I RTFA'd I already started trying to find a way to tell Bank of America that, if they made their ATMs run Windows (the ones in my locale are hopelessly old and can't be running Windows yet), then I'd probably switch to another bank.
So I went to www.bankofamerica.com, clicked on "Contact Us", and... proceeded to get little more than a FAQ and some phone numbers. I hate that! "Contact Us" should give an e-mail address...
Anyway, now there's no point, since apparently it's too late and they're already running Windows. Guess I'll start looking around...
How is kepress-click-dragging with a one-button mouse any more "ergonomic" than click-dragging with a multi-button mouse? Seems to me that using one finger for either a left, middle or right mouse click, while dragging, is at least as easy as using one finger to click left and another finger on another hand to hold down a key.
In the first part of your post, you talk about operating keys with your left hand while steering the mouse with your left hand? THAT sounds like a tough game of twister.
As for the other functions you describe, maybe you missed my point. Almost all the "instant shorthand" functions you describe, except the multi-key combinations (shift-option click) could be implemented via different mouse buttons --- and in most cases already ARE on the Mac, if you buy yourself a multi-button mouse. (e.g. pressing the middle mouse button while closing a Finder window...) So the issue is just "Why won't Macs ship with a multi-button mouse?"
So, with the Mac, in some sense you already have a multi-button mouse, it's just that it requires TWO hands to operate it, instead of just one. Putting some of the functions on a multi-button mouse frees up your left hand to do other things. Now THAT'S ergonomic. In gaming situations, this can make a big difference -- e.g. I can keep my left hand centered over "A,W,S,D" without having to use my thumb or other fingers for Command, Option etc.
I think the reason people consider them young humans is because they simply ARE. It's not a religious fact, it's just a matter of noting that these are humans in an early stage of development. The debate is over whether humans at this early stage are expendable (for the "good of the rest of society") or not.
As for your description of the views of "religious people": Maybe you can find someone to advocate the position you describe, but I'm not sure many would identify with it, or even find it necessarily relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator
This quote from the original post is so false. (the "supernatural creator" part.) I wish people would get a clue about ID before they criticize it. In ID, the nature of the designer(s) is NOT specified. It is simply that life on earth bears marks of having been designed, and where this design came from --- whether (natural, physical) aliens, or the Metaclurians, or Allah, or whoever --- is not included. It is NOT necessarily a religious enterprise, even if many of the participants are religious people. (Some are atheists...)
http://esa.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~shibata/anim.html
Uh, is Al sure he wants to broadcast how often people are searching for pr0n, and the different "kind" of pr0n they're looking for?
What would Tipper say??
So, come on now, tell me: ;-)
What grade did the student engineers of UCSB give the girl for her hack?
What do you make of the recolorization examples then?
Did they make the kid wear different-striped clothes and get in the exact same position?
On the other hand, one can see that many of the pictures have VERY finely-detailed scribbles, like in the picture of the kid with facepaint or the one with girl with the necklace of red beads. I was starting to wonder exactly how fine the "scribbles" had to go to get results of that quality, e.g. perhaps there are even more single-pixel scribbles all over the place that I just wasn't noticing?
Hi. I'm a songwriter and recording artist.
/hard enough to make a living already
Do I still get my 6 cents every time my song is played commercially? Since this 5 cent price applies to "private" downloads, then I'm guessing it's probably just regular sales royalties that are "affected" (and by that I mean "wiped out").
Anybody know?
Oh.
yes, insightful! The show DOES suck.
...with that said... the blonde cylon chick is super-hot.
I rented the first season. Turned it off after it seemed I was watching an excuse for soft-core porn... then turned it back on again after a while of having nothing else to watch. (And you know that morbid-fascination thing?) It's really abominable.
I'm glad you didn't get marked "Troll."
Actually when one RTFAs, one finds that Google actually has this to say:
Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant directories to which a site can be submitted. However, there are a few unethical SEOs who have given the industry a black eye through their overly aggressive marketing efforts and their attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results.
Sounds like they're saying some rather positive things about the industry as a whole.
A friend's SEO company (RefreshWeb.com) has this ad:
Who says we're the top Austin Internet marketing agency? Our national clients. Our friends.
Oh, and...Google. Go ahead, make our day: search on "Austin Internet marketing agency."
I like the self-referential nature of the humor in this.
"Old Glory Insurance"
http://www.robotcombat.com/video_oldglory_lo.html
What about robots?
Oh! They're EVERYWHERE!
I don't even understand why the scientists MAKE them.
"Old Glory Insurance: For when the metal ones decide to come for you; and they will."
_ lo.html
y _hi.html
Lo-resolution (5MB):
http://www.robotcombat.com/video_oldglory
High-resolution (11MB):
http://www.robotcombat.com/video_oldglor
...welcome our new cell-phone-enhancing-ad-absurdam overlords.
But the term "mopisodes" is a tragedy. I hope it doesn't stick.
Today, we have someone from Microsoft who says they haven't installed Firefox. This is decried as shameful -- how dare he criticize the application if he hasn't tried it?
/.ers have posted. The point is not that, "Oh, here's a Microsoft user who hasn't installed Firefox." Big deal. No, the point is that here we have a software executive who's making public statements, assuring people about the competitiveness of his product against a contender that he hasn't even TRIED.
I think you're probably missing the point of the criticisms other
This are the tactics of a desperate but incompentant person. The fact that this article came out at all shows that Microsoft is "taking" the threat very seriously, and yet they're not TREATING seriously by actually doing their homework on Firefox. Duh...
While I disagree about the chances that the provisional & absentee votes will make up for the 150,000-vote lead Bush has over Kerry in Ohio.... I do agree about Kerry taking the high road. I am very pleasantly surprised. Very classy of Kerry to do this.
Hey, that's an interesting point. I wasn't trying to say that making it mandatory to extend benefits to heterosexual partners is "right". Is this currently mandatory? Maybe I don't have the energy to try to oppose breaks & benefits for heterosexual couples --- one must pick ones causes --- but if you feel strongly enough about it, then I encourage you to get involved in the political process over this issue.
If it's not, meaning that it's voluntary on the part of the benefit-giver, then I'm ok with that. I'm even okay with companies or whoever offering benefits to gay spouses! I'm sure many companies would see this as a way of attracting (gay) employees. Which is fine for them.
What I DON'T want is a law that says I have to extend benefits to gay spouses, or even a law that says "if you're (voluntarily) extending benefits to heterosexual couples, then you also are required to extend those benefits to homosexual couples." Such a law would violate my First Amendment rights.
Exactly. Let me live my own life, and don't force me to apply tax breaks or extend employment benefits to gay "spouses"!
On a related note don't use PUBLIC schools to teach children that homosexuality is okay and normal (i.e. sex ed programs in a few states).
Hey, I don't think the article gave us many details about these robots. Will they be autonamous in the sense of doing their own navigation and such (like the robots in that contest out the desrt earlier this year), or will they be entirely controlled from earth?
...anybody know more about these robots?
I suppose, with the moon only be a quarter million miles from the earth, a one-to-two second time delay in controlling the robot may not be worth the expense of putting in fancy on-board AI, but
Hi, I looked through posts and didn't see any discussion of this:
When I was a grad student in physics back in the late '90s, I remember seeing some papers posted on a bulletin board about a study of coins falling in water. This system, and the system of pages falling in air clearly have some similarities that, of course, the popular press isn't going to bother pointing out.
But, fyi, the falling paper problem is still more complicated, since the air affects not only the motion of the paper, but its shape as well.
One thing that wasn't clear from the article, however, were what sort of computational techniques they are using. Solving Navier-Stokes is extremely difficult, and subject to all kinds of artifacts of the computational setup (e.g. discretization scale, location of boundary conditions,, etc..) Not that I'm doubting the editors of PRL, just that it would have been nice to see a bit more detail.
Hopefully not. This is why I support the Federal Marriage Amendment, just so that it's made explicit that the government of one state will not be forced to honor the gay marriages and civil unions allowed by another state.
Please do not forget (or violate) the civil rights of people (voters, business owners, etc) who would be compelled against their own consciences & religions to accept, bless, and fund gay marriages based on the decisions of activist judges.
Not to troll, but, couldn't this journalist have done a little more than just quote from one anonymous employee of a major publisher?
Before I RTFA'd I already started trying to find a way to tell Bank of America that, if they made their ATMs run Windows (the ones in my locale are hopelessly old and can't be running Windows yet), then I'd probably switch to another bank.
So I went to www.bankofamerica.com, clicked on "Contact Us", and... proceeded to get little more than a FAQ and some phone numbers. I hate that! "Contact Us" should give an e-mail address...
Anyway, now there's no point, since apparently it's too late and they're already running Windows. Guess I'll start looking around...
How is kepress-click-dragging with a one-button mouse any more "ergonomic" than click-dragging with a multi-button mouse? Seems to me that using one finger for either a left, middle or right mouse click, while dragging, is at least as easy as using one finger to click left and another finger on another hand to hold down a key.
In the first part of your post, you talk about operating keys with your left hand while steering the mouse with your left hand? THAT sounds like a tough game of twister.
As for the other functions you describe, maybe you missed my point. Almost all the "instant shorthand" functions you describe, except the multi-key combinations (shift-option click) could be implemented via different mouse buttons --- and in most cases already ARE on the Mac, if you buy yourself a multi-button mouse. (e.g. pressing the middle mouse button while closing a Finder window...) So the issue is just "Why won't Macs ship with a multi-button mouse?"
So, with the Mac, in some sense you already have a multi-button mouse, it's just that it requires TWO hands to operate it, instead of just one. Putting some of the functions on a multi-button mouse frees up your left hand to do other things. Now THAT'S ergonomic. In gaming situations, this can make a big difference -- e.g. I can keep my left hand centered over "A,W,S,D" without having to use my thumb or other fingers for Command, Option etc.
I think the reason people consider them young humans is because they simply ARE. It's not a religious fact, it's just a matter of noting that these are humans in an early stage of development. The debate is over whether humans at this early stage are expendable (for the "good of the rest of society") or not.
As for your description of the views of "religious people": Maybe you can find someone to advocate the position you describe, but I'm not sure many would identify with it, or even find it necessarily relevant.
This is the only equation that will give you the quickest way from here to there in an airplane.
Not on a curved earth. (Not for anything but short distances, anyway.)