That and it' simply false. Someone is more creative when drunk because a sober person has filters in place. The intoxication inhibits the filters. So the drunk person wants to find out what happens when they do this. "Hey, Bubba, watch this" followed by riding a lawnmower into a pool, or something else similarly stupid.
"Creative" generally implies an ability to solve some problem. Alcohol doesn't help there. It doesn't even help artists solve the problem of drawing Love or whatever they are stumped doing. But it lets them try out more wrong answers.
If people worked harder at not building themselves into anti-creative boxes all their lives, then there wouldn't be any measurable improvement while drunk. But people capable of finding a valid answer, don't because the process to the answer is blocked by their personal barriers. Creativity is a choice, and someone that has chosen to not be defined by others will not need chemical interference to be "creative". And will certainly be more productive at realizing the creativity while sober.
Eventually the treatments will have cutoff ages. Many sci-fi stories told about how the longest-lived person will die, and the next generation will live much longer than they did, because the "early" treatments were incompatible with some of the later ones. Only rarely is there a Niven-style AutoDoc that can repair anything, including previous age extension.
Puberty starts 8-12 in modern humans. Puberty of women is the only thing that matters (a single post-pubescent male can inpregnate hundreds of women, but one woman can't carry more than one child at a time (exceptions for rare twins and such). And it doesn't matter if you live after giving birth, other than to reproduce again. It's only been about 100 years since the number 1 killer of women was childbirth. The non-breeders raised the breeders. One man would impregnate as many women as possible, and fertile women would be pregnant as much as possible, until dead.
6-8 years of parenthood was enough. And the tribe would raise the children jointly, as the males died often getting food or warring with others, and the mothers were either pregnant or dead.
Where's yours that I'm wrong? Oh yeah, you don't have any. I have an opinon. It's based in fact. That you don't weigh the facts the same that I do doesn't make my opinion wrong. Sony has something to gain by lying. DPRK doesn't. So, the simplest answer is generally correct. The person with the most to gain by lying, is.
If you don't like my opinion, then give your own, rather than cowardly attacking others without taking a stand yourself.
Yes, you are agreeing with me in a very disagreeable manner. You use the "if they knew about it." disclaimer to prove my point. If you were wanting to burn your plane for the insurance money (your 30 year old Cessna has the original cockpit, and updated/newer versions sell for less than what you paid for it), and you were driving past your hanger and checked in and noted a grease fire just starting in the corner by someone else's plane (as you park yours in a shared hangar), if you were to just turn around and walk out, all forensic proof would indicate that the fire was not man made, and that you didn't do it. Because you didn't. If you asserted that when you stopped in, it wasn't burning, nobody could prove otherwise (unless there's a camera and the recording wasn't damaged that shows you and the fire at the same time). If it happened in a manner they didn't know about, your deliberate increase of loss would never be found out, and the legitimate insured event will be paid out, no matter how much investigation is done into the start of the fire and circumstances around the start of the fire.
Yes, and if you note the analogy, I never stated Sony hacked themselves. As such, any investigation into the hackers will prove Sony didn't do it. So what was your point again?
Autonomous driving will remain a dream until the government removes liability from the maker. At which time unsafe makers will join in the fray, and the people will presume them unsafe.
I've been in the car when my dad caused a crash when he dropped a cigarette (the tobacco kind, menthol). Just because you managed doesn't mean everyone can. Same thing the anti-gadget people assert when talking about these things. Just because they are unsafe at any speed, they want to ban everything that "could be" a distraction, even if it isn't.
Brink of war? We've been at war since the '50s. We've had a long cease fire. But the war never ended. Sony would gladly kill a bunch of Koreans and Americans for profit. It's not like they are Japanese...
If you come home to find a small fire burning in your garage, and you want the insurance money. How could the insurance company ever prove "burning it for the insurance" if you turned around and went to the movies for a few hours and came back later to see what was left? The fire was a legitimate insured event. It wasn't started by you, you just did what you could to make sure the loss was increased.
They don't want us driving. Humans suck at it. It's boring and a waste of time. So we don't pay attention, or travel way too fast (or both). We crash at an alarming rate, but don't care because the human brain can't comprehend large or small numbers.
People want consistent UI. Having to have a muli-touch smartphone GPS and a button and dial tactile GPS in the car seems stupider than you assert touchscreen in a car is.
I'm sure the manual will indicate that the touchscreen should only be used while parked. But given that I've seen people disappear to reach into the glove box for a CD and fiddle with removing the previous, and change the CD while in heavy traffic, I can't see this being any less safe than we currently allow on the roads. In fact, because it's a common UI, despite the eyes leaving the road, because it's a shorter time, it may be safer than your dials and buttons.
Sony won't benefit from the publicity if it doesn't release the movie.
Why not? Doesn't the publicity distract from their inability to secure their network? Don't major motion pictures have insurance, so if they manage to "delete" this movie from reality, they'll get some payout, and wouldn't it be more than spending $55M promoting a movie that makes $35M in the box office?
And if they wanted to "release" the movie, throw up a torrent of it and wait 30 seconds. It'll be "released".
Or are you saying that the only possible motivation is profits for an unwatchable joke of a movie?
Just do it is the right answer. I learned by takng source code of small easy games published in BASIC in magazines. You make it work their way, then you modify it your way. It'll give you hints as to what you like and want to do.
Yup, I don't doubt that Sony was hacked. But after that, it all sounds like a movie studio testing out a movie script as an excuse. The foriegn government did it because they were mad about a movie that nobody would have watched had they not hacked us. Oh, and death threats, terrorism, and interview Megan Fox about it. Well, not her personally yet, but lots of celebs have come down on Sony's side against the terrorists. But I was assuming the threats were from Sony to help distract/hide from the actual hack. I didn't consider all the people faking a message from the DPRK hackers for lols.
Yes. The UN languages. We can translate between them in "real time" today (actually near-real-time, as people misuse "real-time" as being quick enough they don't notice, rather than actually real-time, which is impossible with translations).
The red... car. In Spanish "...[pause, not real time] El Auto Roja" You must wait for the English statement to end before you can start translating the Spanish version, as the tense, gender, and such (not to mention inflection and other non-literal meaning) must be taken into account.
But in the sense of machne-translated within seconds of being spoken/written, we have solved that for all U?N languages with a surprisingly high degree of accuracy. And because the text to speech and speech to text for both is also solved (though not as well, and speech to text the weakest link), Skype solves no "new" problem. They just solve the problem in a popular program.
He assumes lasers light up the whole surface evenly, not that they remain pencil-thin indefinitely. But yes, I had seen that. I also know that we have seen lasers reflect off the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
I'm assuming an insane attacker because they are the worst type. Someone willing to spend $1B to break a $1M network will never be kept out. When you are looking at state actors, the price is not as important as the results.
The hackers are now terrorists who have threatened millions of lives in a 9/11 style attack.
The president will not order, or sanction, the killing of the douchebags who hacked Sony.
When Sony hires some Pinkerton Men to take care of it quickly and quietly in Thailand, if the Thai authorities don't push the issue, would the US sanction Sony in any way? Would it matter whether the hackers were found in the US and took a trip to Thailand? Would it matter if the trip was in a trunk in the hold of a private plane?
Have you ever watched the laser demonstrations? They all use additional optics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... They add in a focusing lens. Nobody quotes how much it spreads out, but they all do based on inherent flaws in the optics already. They are already 6' wide or more at approaching aircraft height, so how wide would you want them? Have you ever tried shining a hand-held laser at the moon? Even if you did, it wouldn't be visible. It spreads out too much.
My solution would be putting cameras on the planes and coating the area around the cockpit with retro-reflective material. Blast the beam back at the sender, and capture where it's coming from.
North Korea didn't do it. The only people who have "proof" haven't released the proof, just summaries, and already were documented as hating the accused before the act. The only one who benefited from the threats over showing the movie is Sony. I think Sony made the threats to vilify the hackers and write-off the movie and maybe claim an insurance policy against it, since it's a flop anyway.
But what reason would Sony have to not issue death threats against itself and blame the hackers? The movie was going to lose money. It sucked. At least this way the focus on finding and killing the hackers as gone up.
The hack was real. The threats against releasing the movie weren't.
Slashdot Mirror
That and it' simply false. Someone is more creative when drunk because a sober person has filters in place. The intoxication inhibits the filters. So the drunk person wants to find out what happens when they do this. "Hey, Bubba, watch this" followed by riding a lawnmower into a pool, or something else similarly stupid.
"Creative" generally implies an ability to solve some problem. Alcohol doesn't help there. It doesn't even help artists solve the problem of drawing Love or whatever they are stumped doing. But it lets them try out more wrong answers.
If people worked harder at not building themselves into anti-creative boxes all their lives, then there wouldn't be any measurable improvement while drunk. But people capable of finding a valid answer, don't because the process to the answer is blocked by their personal barriers. Creativity is a choice, and someone that has chosen to not be defined by others will not need chemical interference to be "creative". And will certainly be more productive at realizing the creativity while sober.
Eventually the treatments will have cutoff ages. Many sci-fi stories told about how the longest-lived person will die, and the next generation will live much longer than they did, because the "early" treatments were incompatible with some of the later ones. Only rarely is there a Niven-style AutoDoc that can repair anything, including previous age extension.
Puberty starts 8-12 in modern humans. Puberty of women is the only thing that matters (a single post-pubescent male can inpregnate hundreds of women, but one woman can't carry more than one child at a time (exceptions for rare twins and such). And it doesn't matter if you live after giving birth, other than to reproduce again. It's only been about 100 years since the number 1 killer of women was childbirth. The non-breeders raised the breeders. One man would impregnate as many women as possible, and fertile women would be pregnant as much as possible, until dead.
6-8 years of parenthood was enough. And the tribe would raise the children jointly, as the males died often getting food or warring with others, and the mothers were either pregnant or dead.
Where's yours that I'm wrong? Oh yeah, you don't have any. I have an opinon. It's based in fact. That you don't weigh the facts the same that I do doesn't make my opinion wrong. Sony has something to gain by lying. DPRK doesn't. So, the simplest answer is generally correct. The person with the most to gain by lying, is.
If you don't like my opinion, then give your own, rather than cowardly attacking others without taking a stand yourself.
So, who do you trust to tell the truth more, the US government or Sony?
Yes, you are agreeing with me in a very disagreeable manner. You use the "if they knew about it." disclaimer to prove my point. If you were wanting to burn your plane for the insurance money (your 30 year old Cessna has the original cockpit, and updated/newer versions sell for less than what you paid for it), and you were driving past your hanger and checked in and noted a grease fire just starting in the corner by someone else's plane (as you park yours in a shared hangar), if you were to just turn around and walk out, all forensic proof would indicate that the fire was not man made, and that you didn't do it. Because you didn't. If you asserted that when you stopped in, it wasn't burning, nobody could prove otherwise (unless there's a camera and the recording wasn't damaged that shows you and the fire at the same time). If it happened in a manner they didn't know about, your deliberate increase of loss would never be found out, and the legitimate insured event will be paid out, no matter how much investigation is done into the start of the fire and circumstances around the start of the fire.
Yes, and if you note the analogy, I never stated Sony hacked themselves. As such, any investigation into the hackers will prove Sony didn't do it. So what was your point again?
Autonomous driving will remain a dream until the government removes liability from the maker. At which time unsafe makers will join in the fray, and the people will presume them unsafe.
I've been in the car when my dad caused a crash when he dropped a cigarette (the tobacco kind, menthol). Just because you managed doesn't mean everyone can. Same thing the anti-gadget people assert when talking about these things. Just because they are unsafe at any speed, they want to ban everything that "could be" a distraction, even if it isn't.
Brink of war? We've been at war since the '50s. We've had a long cease fire. But the war never ended. Sony would gladly kill a bunch of Koreans and Americans for profit. It's not like they are Japanese...
If you come home to find a small fire burning in your garage, and you want the insurance money. How could the insurance company ever prove "burning it for the insurance" if you turned around and went to the movies for a few hours and came back later to see what was left? The fire was a legitimate insured event. It wasn't started by you, you just did what you could to make sure the loss was increased.
They don't want us driving. Humans suck at it. It's boring and a waste of time. So we don't pay attention, or travel way too fast (or both). We crash at an alarming rate, but don't care because the human brain can't comprehend large or small numbers.
People want consistent UI. Having to have a muli-touch smartphone GPS and a button and dial tactile GPS in the car seems stupider than you assert touchscreen in a car is.
I'm sure the manual will indicate that the touchscreen should only be used while parked. But given that I've seen people disappear to reach into the glove box for a CD and fiddle with removing the previous, and change the CD while in heavy traffic, I can't see this being any less safe than we currently allow on the roads. In fact, because it's a common UI, despite the eyes leaving the road, because it's a shorter time, it may be safer than your dials and buttons.
And how many did the US kill (ostensibly) over 9/11? Millions?
You'll have to be more specific. Who's 12? Kim Jong Un, Sony, DHS, the hackers?
Sony won't benefit from the publicity if it doesn't release the movie.
Why not? Doesn't the publicity distract from their inability to secure their network? Don't major motion pictures have insurance, so if they manage to "delete" this movie from reality, they'll get some payout, and wouldn't it be more than spending $55M promoting a movie that makes $35M in the box office?
And if they wanted to "release" the movie, throw up a torrent of it and wait 30 seconds. It'll be "released".
Or are you saying that the only possible motivation is profits for an unwatchable joke of a movie?
Just do it is the right answer. I learned by takng source code of small easy games published in BASIC in magazines. You make it work their way, then you modify it your way. It'll give you hints as to what you like and want to do.
Yup, I don't doubt that Sony was hacked. But after that, it all sounds like a movie studio testing out a movie script as an excuse. The foriegn government did it because they were mad about a movie that nobody would have watched had they not hacked us. Oh, and death threats, terrorism, and interview Megan Fox about it. Well, not her personally yet, but lots of celebs have come down on Sony's side against the terrorists. But I was assuming the threats were from Sony to help distract/hide from the actual hack. I didn't consider all the people faking a message from the DPRK hackers for lols.
Yes. The UN languages. We can translate between them in "real time" today (actually near-real-time, as people misuse "real-time" as being quick enough they don't notice, rather than actually real-time, which is impossible with translations).
... car. In Spanish "...[pause, not real time] El Auto Roja" You must wait for the English statement to end before you can start translating the Spanish version, as the tense, gender, and such (not to mention inflection and other non-literal meaning) must be taken into account.
The red
But in the sense of machne-translated within seconds of being spoken/written, we have solved that for all U?N languages with a surprisingly high degree of accuracy. And because the text to speech and speech to text for both is also solved (though not as well, and speech to text the weakest link), Skype solves no "new" problem. They just solve the problem in a popular program.
He assumes lasers light up the whole surface evenly, not that they remain pencil-thin indefinitely. But yes, I had seen that. I also know that we have seen lasers reflect off the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
I'm assuming an insane attacker because they are the worst type. Someone willing to spend $1B to break a $1M network will never be kept out. When you are looking at state actors, the price is not as important as the results.
The president will not order, or sanction, the killing of the douchebags who hacked Sony.
When Sony hires some Pinkerton Men to take care of it quickly and quietly in Thailand, if the Thai authorities don't push the issue, would the US sanction Sony in any way? Would it matter whether the hackers were found in the US and took a trip to Thailand? Would it matter if the trip was in a trunk in the hold of a private plane?
Have you ever watched the laser demonstrations? They all use additional optics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... They add in a focusing lens. Nobody quotes how much it spreads out, but they all do based on inherent flaws in the optics already. They are already 6' wide or more at approaching aircraft height, so how wide would you want them? Have you ever tried shining a hand-held laser at the moon? Even if you did, it wouldn't be visible. It spreads out too much.
My solution would be putting cameras on the planes and coating the area around the cockpit with retro-reflective material. Blast the beam back at the sender, and capture where it's coming from.
North Korea didn't do it. The only people who have "proof" haven't released the proof, just summaries, and already were documented as hating the accused before the act. The only one who benefited from the threats over showing the movie is Sony. I think Sony made the threats to vilify the hackers and write-off the movie and maybe claim an insurance policy against it, since it's a flop anyway.
But what reason would Sony have to not issue death threats against itself and blame the hackers? The movie was going to lose money. It sucked. At least this way the focus on finding and killing the hackers as gone up.
The hack was real. The threats against releasing the movie weren't.