Slashdot is different. Here, we have this wonderful thing called a text-area. In it you can type, and after you've typed you can read what you've typed, because it's still there on the screen waiting for further input from you. More than that, you can then preview what you've typed to see how it looks in the comments once it has been committed. The words are the same as what you'd typed previously, but you have the chance to read them once again before committing to eternity the thing you typed.
But you know, a question is forming in my head. I do know what you mean about edit-buttons. They exist. I've implemented them myself in projects. They *seem* useful. Why doesn't Slashdot just implement them too?
But that's not really my question. My question is: How conditioned are we by the existence of edit-buttons? How many people read a comment, and then go back and read it again later anticipating that it might have changed? I don't know about you, but when I've used an edit-button I feel a certain anxiety about how many people might have seen my original unedited post.
With Slashdot, the anxiety has a kind of relief. I mean, I'm still left with the shame of leaving a draft-version of my thoughts on the Internet for all to judge me by, but at the same time at least there's a way for me to notice how much others give a shit about that. If someone sees my mistake, they can say so, and then I can clarify what I meant to say with another comment. For the silent ones, I guess they will fall into two camps: One will be "Oh, I guess they meant to type this." The other, "Oh, I guess they meant to type this, but they didn't, so I get to think about how stupid they are and that makes me feel better about myself."
In thinking about this I get to feel stupid too, but I also have an avenue for correcting that stupidity, and for others to see me doing so, which I think is a good thing for keeping my ego in check, and for demonstrating to others that this is an okay thing to do in a world dominated by reactionary media. Yes, I know we could implement edit-histories and diffs against revisions and all that shit. But why go to such effort for sake of the effluence that comes out of most of our keyboards? It is my conviction that people need to be reminded more regularly of how stupid they are than how clever they are, and toys like edit-buttons and the like are things we can ration to help us with our collective neuroses.
Sure, but you're continuing to miss the point. You figure it out yet or no?
Gentlemen please, this can be settled with simple science.
All we need to be absolutely sure of AGW is a duplicate Earth, but without the humans. We implement a second Earth as it was 200 years ago, remove the humans, and run the clock out.
To increase the fidelity of the test, we simply create more Earths.
Regardless of how you feel about the jack, I think it's more concerning that Apple is the only company with the balls to even *try* removing a legacy port.
If it fails and Apple falls on its arse, we've learned something, and Apple will have learned something too. No other company seems willing to take risks in this way.
It's an important question, but it always gets lost in the myopia of people arguing about fashion and money and personal inconvenience.
To be fair, although she was drunk as shit and should have never been behind a wheel, it appears from camera footage that she was swerving to avoid ANOTHER car that was traveling the wrong way on the street.
Driving drunk is not much of a problem if nothing unexpected happens on your way home. Even though someone has a 2500% greater chance of having an accident with a.20 BAC, that only increases the chances of an accident on a 10 mile trip from 0.002% to about 0.04625% (or 1 in 2000 10 mile drunk driving trips). Nearly 100% of people who drive drunk don't get into an accident.
Driving drunk is mostly just a problem because something unexpected might happen, like another car driving the wrong way on a street. When drunk you don't have the necessary reaction time to adjust and an accident becomes very likely.
So what you're saying is for drunks, we should assess risk the same way as if they were travelling by airplane?
Still a massively low chance of an accident, but a massively higher chance of killing everyone if something bad happens.
...written by a bunch of middle-aged white bigots who somehow manage to keep their rag on the newsagent shelves.
Still, a stopped-clock is right twice a day. If they get something right, there's no need for a blanket ban. Ideas transcend personality and all that jazz.
I'd think that most people who eat with their mouths open have enough experience with it that they don't spill, which negates two of your points.
I question whether those who eat with their mouths open are self-aware enough to train such an ability in the first place.
1: Not having to swallow before saying something. Which might be something important, like "lion!". I've seen people choke because they attempted to swallow unchewed food so they could answer a waiter.
I fail to see how chewing with a closed mouth precludes opening it in such dire emergencies. And the waiter who deliberately asks questions while people are chewing might, on inspecting their tip-jar, like to speculate on how much they've lost due to such irritating behaviour.
If there's any connection between the act of liquefying your food before swallowing and open vs. closed mouth chewing, frankly I can much more easily see how open-mouthers are more likely to choke, since those with closed mouths can complete the mastication process to its fullest extent with no fear of anything accidentally "leaking out" of their gaping, anti-social pie-holes.
2: Practice for cunnilingus.
You eat at your mothers table with that idea in your head? Cunnilingus is practice for cunnilingus.
3: Being able to chew on what's too big for single bites. Like gnawing on bones.
Gnawing on something too big to put in your mouth, and therefore chew and swallow, is not what is being talked about, and needless to say the sound output is different.
The biggest downside to eating with an open mouth is likely etiquette. Which is important enough - it's the grease in the machinery of interpersonal relations.
It's true that there is a lot of arbitrary etiquette around, but some of it has sanitary origins too, and I think eating with your mouth-closed is one of those things.
1. You won't spray all over everyone and everything while you masticate. 2. More food makes it into your gut, so you're less of a wasteful slob in an otherwise hugely wasteful age. 3. People won't have to raise their voices to have a conversation over your meat-flapping noises. 4. You won't announce your gastronomic preoccupation to predators.
But why not just create an umbrella that owns Tesla Motors as a subsidiary?
Umbrellas are so 2016.
What Tesla needs is a bodega company that can cover multiple umbrella organisations at once, one of which would actually cover Tesla Motors, itself donning a pac-a-mac for extra weatherproofing capability.
The United States and the Czech Republic sign an initial agreement to base a United States missile defense system in the Czech Republic. (AP via Google News) Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responds to this development, "We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods." (The Times)
Darling, the fate of the astronaut in either case has nothing to do with it. The alpha centauri one is going to die before you get there, truly. But you cannot say he is "dead already" from your own reference frame. Well, you can on a/. thread obviously, but it's a philosophical point, not a scientific one.
You can make the trip to the doomed astronaut, and you can watch him die through your telescope before you get there (however the hell that might look when you're moving at relativistic speeds) but there is absolutely no way for you to *prove* that he has already expired before you left, because there is no mechanism to check the fact.
"Oh well, but doesn't it just make sense anyway? I mean, he only had food for 4 years, and it took more than that for his message to reach us." Yes, I get what you're trying to say, but it's a philosophical point only, which is another way of saying it's no bloody point at all.
Damn, you're dumb. I really lost it at "we can't say that they died X light-years ago". No, we certainly can't say that.
Damn, you're a nice guy and I like you. Yes, I knew I'd be caught on the "light-years ago" point. I thought the years/light-years phrasing I used later would be back-ported by yourself and the intention correctly inferred. Lesson learned. I'll be explicit next time. I also made a mistake at the start of the 3rd paragraph: Replace *say* with *hypothesise* to get the gist of my meaning.
Anyway, adding a radio into the mix is pure fluff, and so is the notion of precision. Neither say anything about when it is meaningful to say "Z happened" according to any particular reference frame.
There isn't nearly enough data to answer the question, and whatever data I can dream-up to fill the gaps doesn't solve the problem either.
We can sit here and watch the astronaut die from afar, but we can't say that they died X light-years ago because the information of the event is propagating at that speed too. To send a rescue craft to reach them just before they perish and then return at light-speed, such events would happen (from our frame-of-reference) over the same duration it would have taken to just watch and do nothing (well, slightly less of course, because they were rescued.:)
I grant that you can *say* that the event happened Y years/light-years ago. It's good fun, we have a few laughs, and no/. article with "light years" in it is complete without several of us doing so. But when it comes to actual spacetime, and the real job of looking at it, moving around it, and proving the whole damned conjecture in an empirical way from *any* frame of reference; well, we can't bloody do it, and as far as the best science can tell us so far, nobody else can either, which makes the statement utterly vacuous.
But fun, I guess, and it obviously never gets old.
There's no provable or usable mechanism by which we can travel to any part of the Universe faster than the speed of light, so trying to make a distinction between the "light of an event reaching us" vs. "the event being observed as it happens" is semantically meaningless.
Information can't travel faster than light, and you can't currently get anywhere fast enough to prove otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot is different. Here, we have this wonderful thing called a text-area. In it you can type, and after you've typed you can read what you've typed, because it's still there on the screen waiting for further input from you. More than that, you can then preview what you've typed to see how it looks in the comments once it has been committed. The words are the same as what you'd typed previously, but you have the chance to read them once again before committing to eternity the thing you typed.
But you know, a question is forming in my head. I do know what you mean about edit-buttons. They exist. I've implemented them myself in projects. They *seem* useful. Why doesn't Slashdot just implement them too?
But that's not really my question. My question is: How conditioned are we by the existence of edit-buttons? How many people read a comment, and then go back and read it again later anticipating that it might have changed? I don't know about you, but when I've used an edit-button I feel a certain anxiety about how many people might have seen my original unedited post.
With Slashdot, the anxiety has a kind of relief. I mean, I'm still left with the shame of leaving a draft-version of my thoughts on the Internet for all to judge me by, but at the same time at least there's a way for me to notice how much others give a shit about that. If someone sees my mistake, they can say so, and then I can clarify what I meant to say with another comment. For the silent ones, I guess they will fall into two camps: One will be "Oh, I guess they meant to type this." The other, "Oh, I guess they meant to type this, but they didn't, so I get to think about how stupid they are and that makes me feel better about myself."
In thinking about this I get to feel stupid too, but I also have an avenue for correcting that stupidity, and for others to see me doing so, which I think is a good thing for keeping my ego in check, and for demonstrating to others that this is an okay thing to do in a world dominated by reactionary media. Yes, I know we could implement edit-histories and diffs against revisions and all that shit. But why go to such effort for sake of the effluence that comes out of most of our keyboards? It is my conviction that people need to be reminded more regularly of how stupid they are than how clever they are, and toys like edit-buttons and the like are things we can ration to help us with our collective neuroses.
Sorry, I meant AutoTune.
Stupid Slashdot, when are they going to join the modern world and allow editing?
Just as soon as commenters lern how to proof-reed their own poasts.
Which is exactly what I said.
Sure, but you're continuing to miss the point. You figure it out yet or no?
Gentlemen please, this can be settled with simple science.
All we need to be absolutely sure of AGW is a duplicate Earth, but without the humans. We implement a second Earth as it was 200 years ago, remove the humans, and run the clock out.
To increase the fidelity of the test, we simply create more Earths.
...and it'll be 10 times cheaper, 10 times better, and looked at with 10 times the inflated sense of entitlement than today.
...about things like this.
Regardless of how you feel about the jack, I think it's more concerning that Apple is the only company with the balls to even *try* removing a legacy port.
If it fails and Apple falls on its arse, we've learned something, and Apple will have learned something too. No other company seems willing to take risks in this way.
It's an important question, but it always gets lost in the myopia of people arguing about fashion and money and personal inconvenience.
To be fair, although she was drunk as shit and should have never been behind a wheel, it appears from camera footage that she was swerving to avoid ANOTHER car that was traveling the wrong way on the street.
Driving drunk is not much of a problem if nothing unexpected happens on your way home. Even though someone has a 2500% greater chance of having an accident with a .20 BAC, that only increases the chances of an accident on a 10 mile trip from 0.002% to about 0.04625% (or 1 in 2000 10 mile drunk driving trips). Nearly 100% of people who drive drunk don't get into an accident.
Driving drunk is mostly just a problem because something unexpected might happen, like another car driving the wrong way on a street. When drunk you don't have the necessary reaction time to adjust and an accident becomes very likely.
So what you're saying is for drunks, we should assess risk the same way as if they were travelling by airplane?
Still a massively low chance of an accident, but a massively higher chance of killing everyone if something bad happens.
...written by a bunch of middle-aged white bigots who somehow manage to keep their rag on the newsagent shelves.
Still, a stopped-clock is right twice a day. If they get something right, there's no need for a blanket ban. Ideas transcend personality and all that jazz.
...to Muse.
Watch wine tasters sometime; meat flapping noises galore.
You said it.
I'd think that most people who eat with their mouths open have enough experience with it that they don't spill, which negates two of your points.
I question whether those who eat with their mouths open are self-aware enough to train such an ability in the first place.
1: Not having to swallow before saying something. Which might be something important, like "lion!". I've seen people choke because they attempted to swallow unchewed food so they could answer a waiter.
I fail to see how chewing with a closed mouth precludes opening it in such dire emergencies. And the waiter who deliberately asks questions while people are chewing might, on inspecting their tip-jar, like to speculate on how much they've lost due to such irritating behaviour.
If there's any connection between the act of liquefying your food before swallowing and open vs. closed mouth chewing, frankly I can much more easily see how open-mouthers are more likely to choke, since those with closed mouths can complete the mastication process to its fullest extent with no fear of anything accidentally "leaking out" of their gaping, anti-social pie-holes.
2: Practice for cunnilingus.
You eat at your mothers table with that idea in your head? Cunnilingus is practice for cunnilingus.
3: Being able to chew on what's too big for single bites. Like gnawing on bones.
Gnawing on something too big to put in your mouth, and therefore chew and swallow, is not what is being talked about, and needless to say the sound output is different.
The biggest downside to eating with an open mouth is likely etiquette. Which is important enough - it's the grease in the machinery of interpersonal relations.
It's true that there is a lot of arbitrary etiquette around, but some of it has sanitary origins too, and I think eating with your mouth-closed is one of those things.
"...break-up more households than infidelity."
Why is it good to close your mouth when you eat?
1. You won't spray all over everyone and everything while you masticate.
2. More food makes it into your gut, so you're less of a wasteful slob in an otherwise hugely wasteful age.
3. People won't have to raise their voices to have a conversation over your meat-flapping noises.
4. You won't announce your gastronomic preoccupation to predators.
But why not just create an umbrella that owns Tesla Motors as a subsidiary?
Umbrellas are so 2016.
What Tesla needs is a bodega company that can cover multiple umbrella organisations at once, one of which would actually cover Tesla Motors, itself donning a pac-a-mac for extra weatherproofing capability.
I bet she used some bricks or wood or something, too.
And probably a handful of cats, too.
What incredibly destructive thing were we about to do 8.48 years ago?
Well, let's see...
The United States and the Czech Republic sign an initial agreement to base a United States missile defense system in the Czech Republic. (AP via Google News) Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responds to this development, "We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods." (The Times)
Dammit!
He had a small role in Jarmusch's "Dead Man" with Johnny Depp, and stole the scene. :)
This.
I remember Hurt's fleeting role in Contact, too. Screen-presence is not counted in "minutes".
Darling, the fate of the astronaut in either case has nothing to do with it. The alpha centauri one is going to die before you get there, truly. But you cannot say he is "dead already" from your own reference frame. Well, you can on a /. thread obviously, but it's a philosophical point, not a scientific one.
You can make the trip to the doomed astronaut, and you can watch him die through your telescope before you get there (however the hell that might look when you're moving at relativistic speeds) but there is absolutely no way for you to *prove* that he has already expired before you left, because there is no mechanism to check the fact.
"Oh well, but doesn't it just make sense anyway? I mean, he only had food for 4 years, and it took more than that for his message to reach us." Yes, I get what you're trying to say, but it's a philosophical point only, which is another way of saying it's no bloody point at all.
Chris, can you confirm?! Is this true?! Are you going to be working with Tesla?!
I think that was a waste of a question.
And why so many changes with each release? The language is not as stable as it should be (the syntax, that is).
Darling, nothing is as stable as it should be.
Damn, you're dumb. I really lost it at "we can't say that they died X light-years ago". No, we certainly can't say that.
Damn, you're a nice guy and I like you. Yes, I knew I'd be caught on the "light-years ago" point. I thought the years/light-years phrasing I used later would be back-ported by yourself and the intention correctly inferred. Lesson learned. I'll be explicit next time. I also made a mistake at the start of the 3rd paragraph: Replace *say* with *hypothesise* to get the gist of my meaning.
Anyway, adding a radio into the mix is pure fluff, and so is the notion of precision. Neither say anything about when it is meaningful to say "Z happened" according to any particular reference frame.
There isn't nearly enough data to answer the question, and whatever data I can dream-up to fill the gaps doesn't solve the problem either.
We can sit here and watch the astronaut die from afar, but we can't say that they died X light-years ago because the information of the event is propagating at that speed too. To send a rescue craft to reach them just before they perish and then return at light-speed, such events would happen (from our frame-of-reference) over the same duration it would have taken to just watch and do nothing (well, slightly less of course, because they were rescued. :)
I grant that you can *say* that the event happened Y years/light-years ago. It's good fun, we have a few laughs, and no /. article with "light years" in it is complete without several of us doing so. But when it comes to actual spacetime, and the real job of looking at it, moving around it, and proving the whole damned conjecture in an empirical way from *any* frame of reference; well, we can't bloody do it, and as far as the best science can tell us so far, nobody else can either, which makes the statement utterly vacuous.
But fun, I guess, and it obviously never gets old.
...science demands not only predictions, but reproducibility, falsifiability, and controls.
So all we need is another planet on which to run the experiment!
(Or to be absolutely sure, another two or three.)
It's a bit late to do something about it in either case, is it not?
There's no provable or usable mechanism by which we can travel to any part of the Universe faster than the speed of light, so trying to make a distinction between the "light of an event reaching us" vs. "the event being observed as it happens" is semantically meaningless.
Information can't travel faster than light, and you can't currently get anywhere fast enough to prove otherwise.
But do I still have to load it into RAM before I can run it?
Yeah! Samsung!
Ooooh, so companies are like football teams?
Yeah! Consumer choice!
(Am I doing it right?)