Muscles the Weightlifter is driving along, minding his own business, when the idiot driver behinds him starts accelerating. "Oh no!" shouts Muslces, who proceeds to slam on the gas. "Oh no!" shouts Muscles, who realizes that the gas is harder to press. "Ah, yes," says Muscles, as he realizes that he just needs to push a little harder. Muscles survives.
Theodore the CS professor is driving along, minding his own business, when the idiot driver behinds him starts accelearting. "Oh no!" shouts Theodore, who proceeds to slam on the gas. "Oh no!" shouts Theodore, who realizes that the gas is harder to press. "MOMMY!" shouts Theodore, as he cannot depress the gas any more. Theodore does not survive.
The strongest will survive, my friends. So much more progress.
Your commentary is very insightful (no sarcasm indended) and Score:5 worthy, but I'd like to correct you on a few points. First of all, while people may be deluding themselves into believing in a creator that/who does not exist, and there is no proof of this creator's existence, this is not proof that the creator does not exist. Granted, the likelihood of there being a creator that/who matches anyone's description (i.e. a "God" who talks to people) is infinitesimal, but it's there. And the likelihood that there is a general creator that/who may not match anyone's description is even higher. In fact, even the beginning of the space-time continuum can be regarded as "the creator," as nothing preceded the arrival of time. Who knows. Just remember that lack of evidence does not imply implausibility.
As for your point that believing in a creator helps to alleviate insecurity and inadequacy, sure it does. Who wouldn't feel better knowing that everything will be all right, that the world is fair, and that he/she will eventually be happy? But if one's primary goal in life is to be happy (and isn't it?), then why not choose the happier path? It's probably BS, but unless one ends up trying to fill the lives of others with BS, why not? Sometimes it's just not necessary to face the cold, hard truth.
Might? Socialization is a huge factor in the developmental process. If he isn't properly socialized by puperty, based on what I've learned about critical periods of development I'd say that he won't ever be. On the other hand, he might be miserable in a normal school environment as well. If he were my kid, I'd go the normal education route, and try to find some way to supplement his learning with more complex materials, but who knows what's right?
I estimate the destruction of the earth to be within 300 years, so Google better hurry it up! From there, someone's gotta cram all the information on a flash drive and get the hell off this planet! Mars?
As the article has demonstrated, there are many uses for a laptop bag other than the most obvious one. Just buy a laptop bag and carry your food in it. While you're at it, put an Apple logo on the bag, and laugh at the idiot who earns himself a juicy, ripe apple (and accompanying turkey sandwich) by stealing your bag!
This update is wonderful news for current IE users (all two of you reading/.), but it's horrible for everyone else, most notably web designers. I was desperately hoping that IE would start properly displaying all attributes, and perhaps even much of CSS2. Right now, even attributes like "height" are displayed incorrectly: For example, IE thinks that "height" is actually "min-height." Because IE7 still screws up with CSS, people will continue to think that its rendering of CSS is the correct one, and websites will continue to screw up (i.e. display correctly) in other browsers. This means that we will still have to hinder our creativity by using the few attributes that work correctly in IE.
CSS could revolutionize the web, if only Microsoft would allow it...
This approach is similar to that of a boycott, as is mentioned in the article. If you boycott a company, you end up screwing people who rely on that company's products: But you do it anyway.
Furthermore, Reshef stated that spam sites were being warned before the complaints were sent. The fact that they persist on spamming, in my eyes, makes them responsible for the collateral damage.
Finally, the goal is not to pull the spam sites offline. Blue Security is just trying to make the system less profitable by forcing spammers to sift through the complaint emails.
I have to add that this scheme is certainly bordering on immoral; as of now, though, I still support it. It's like killing someone who is about to kill you: Let the killer die and rot in hell.
Mr Reshef defended the idea against accusations that it was vigilantism or a type of Denial-of-Service attack aimed at knocking websites offline. Spam sites were warned before complaints were sent, said Mr Reshef.
Logo of Lycos Europe anti-spam campaign, Lycos Europe Lycos shut down its anti-spam campaign following complaints "This is very different from computerised attack on sites you pick at random," he said. "What we have done here is take the approach of consumer protest and boycotts and moved it to the internet."
This approach is similar to that of a boycott, as is mentioned in the article. If you boycott a company, you end up screwing people who rely on that company's products: But you do it anyway.
Furthermore, Reshef stated that spam sites were being warned before the complaints were sent. The fact that they persist on spamming, in my eyes, makes them responsible for the collateral damage.
Finally, the goal is not to pull the spam sites offline. Blue Security is just trying to make the system less profitable by forcing spammers to sift through the complaint emails.
I have to add that this scheme is certainly bordering on immoral; as of now, though, I still support it. It's like killing someone who is about to kill you: <i>Let the killer die and rot in hell.</i>
Actually, IE now supports the PNG format. Google would never alienate the majority: It seems that we'll have to let Microsoft improve IE at its own pace. It worked for Longhorn! Wait.
I just hope that the RIAA doesn't fine me for listening, against my will, to "This Love" playing in the background of a horrible blog I've been forced to read!
Apple supposedly sells one-button mice so that developers won't assume that all users own two-button mice. In the Windows world, because developers hold this assumption, it has become commonplace to place everything in the context menu. This makes for extremely poor usability.
What you're advocating is precisely what Apple is trying to get away from.
OS X can definetely learn from Windows, but not in this respect. At least in my opinion.
I can certainly understand that this is amazing technology, but new technological innovations only succeed if the higher price points deliver better experiences than do available products. Frankly, this technology seems only marginally better than that of two typical televisions, adjacent to one another. I don't understand the economics behind this planned release.
Perhaps piracy would technically be easier with this system, but you have to remember that most people really don't like stealing. The iTunes Music Store is blossoming for this very reason. Freeman's point is a good one: If a system like the iTunes Music Store (but for movies) precedes possible rampant piracy (which is certainly growing in the movie industry), the problem will be corrected before it grows. As is the case with music at the moment, you will then start seeing a lot of people legally downloading movies, and there will be no piracy mess to clean up (as has been the case with music). I certainly believe that this system would thwart far more piracy than it would encourage.
You're missing his point. The state of the air that is touching you at the moment that you travel back in time is something that you know. Thus, you will be preventing from even breathing air when you travel back in time, because that would alter the exact state of the air in the future. Of course, you also can't die. How does someone stay alive without breathing? That makes no sense. I'm not saying that time travel is impossible, but it would have to be quite different than this model, which simply makes no sense.
If I were you, I'd step back for a moment, and realize that Apple's economists are probably well aware of any implications of the company's decisions. Apple is a company, and their resistance to distributing the OS has nothing to do with a "holier than thou" mindset. They decided that this approach would benefit them in the long term, and I have to agree with them.
OS X would probably not eventually "win." One of the reasons that Mac OS X operates almost flawlessly is that it runs on standardized hardware. Take that away, and problems will arise, just as they do with Windows. Moreover, most people use Windows right now. As good as OS X is, it's not good enough to warrant a switch for many people. I'd say that the user base of OS X would triple, but at that point, viruses would start to appear on OS X. It is certainly a more secure operating system, but by no means perfect. Once viruses start appearing on OS X, the surge of users would slow down. With the lack of hardware/software integration, nothing would be that special about OS X anymore, and the user base wouldn't come close to that of Windows. Apple would have to rely on the iPod to crawl out of the grave.
...but hell, what do I know? I'm just an engineering student:).
People don't drop out of college because they're stupid. If you're there, you can almost always handle it. It's just a matter of how motivated you are, as well as external factors (such as those involving finances, love, etc.). You might think that smarter people need less motivation, and therefore it's other people who drop out, but that's a fallacy. Smarter people may need a different form of motivation, but they definitely need motivation. Those who lack motivation are the ones to drop out, regardless of brain power.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure you didn't just read about the shooting of a bear that might be a hybrid? The DNA confirmation is recent, I believe.
Examine this scenario:
Muscles the Weightlifter is driving along, minding his own business, when the idiot driver behinds him starts accelerating. "Oh no!" shouts Muslces, who proceeds to slam on the gas. "Oh no!" shouts Muscles, who realizes that the gas is harder to press. "Ah, yes," says Muscles, as he realizes that he just needs to push a little harder. Muscles survives.
Theodore the CS professor is driving along, minding his own business, when the idiot driver behinds him starts accelearting. "Oh no!" shouts Theodore, who proceeds to slam on the gas. "Oh no!" shouts Theodore, who realizes that the gas is harder to press. "MOMMY!" shouts Theodore, as he cannot depress the gas any more. Theodore does not survive.
The strongest will survive, my friends. So much more progress.
Your commentary is very insightful (no sarcasm indended) and Score:5 worthy, but I'd like to correct you on a few points. First of all, while people may be deluding themselves into believing in a creator that/who does not exist, and there is no proof of this creator's existence, this is not proof that the creator does not exist. Granted, the likelihood of there being a creator that/who matches anyone's description (i.e. a "God" who talks to people) is infinitesimal, but it's there. And the likelihood that there is a general creator that/who may not match anyone's description is even higher. In fact, even the beginning of the space-time continuum can be regarded as "the creator," as nothing preceded the arrival of time. Who knows. Just remember that lack of evidence does not imply implausibility.
As for your point that believing in a creator helps to alleviate insecurity and inadequacy, sure it does. Who wouldn't feel better knowing that everything will be all right, that the world is fair, and that he/she will eventually be happy? But if one's primary goal in life is to be happy (and isn't it?), then why not choose the happier path? It's probably BS, but unless one ends up trying to fill the lives of others with BS, why not? Sometimes it's just not necessary to face the cold, hard truth.
It really depends on the extent to which one isn't socialized. It just has to be beyond a certain point, I believe.
Might? Socialization is a huge factor in the developmental process. If he isn't properly socialized by puperty, based on what I've learned about critical periods of development I'd say that he won't ever be. On the other hand, he might be miserable in a normal school environment as well. If he were my kid, I'd go the normal education route, and try to find some way to supplement his learning with more complex materials, but who knows what's right?
Gosh: If only it worked backwards, too. What a genius I'd be in one area what with sucking in all the others!
Imagine all of your molecules being transported from place to place in a little nanocar caravan. Now that would be a sight, indeed!
They're just trying to delay the release of 10 GHz chips.
For shame!
I estimate the destruction of the earth to be within 300 years, so Google better hurry it up! From there, someone's gotta cram all the information on a flash drive and get the hell off this planet! Mars?
As the article has demonstrated, there are many uses for a laptop bag other than the most obvious one. Just buy a laptop bag and carry your food in it. While you're at it, put an Apple logo on the bag, and laugh at the idiot who earns himself a juicy, ripe apple (and accompanying turkey sandwich) by stealing your bag!
Definitely, dude. Give HIV to the gay guys! Make 'em pregnant, for all I care!
This update is wonderful news for current IE users (all two of you reading /.), but it's horrible for everyone else, most notably web designers. I was desperately hoping that IE would start properly displaying all attributes, and perhaps even much of CSS2. Right now, even attributes like "height" are displayed incorrectly: For example, IE thinks that "height" is actually "min-height." Because IE7 still screws up with CSS, people will continue to think that its rendering of CSS is the correct one, and websites will continue to screw up (i.e. display correctly) in other browsers. This means that we will still have to hinder our creativity by using the few attributes that work correctly in IE.
...but have fun with the tabs, dear IE users :\.
CSS could revolutionize the web, if only Microsoft would allow it...
This approach is similar to that of a boycott, as is mentioned in the article. If you boycott a company, you end up screwing people who rely on that company's products: But you do it anyway.
Furthermore, Reshef stated that spam sites were being warned before the complaints were sent. The fact that they persist on spamming, in my eyes, makes them responsible for the collateral damage.
Finally, the goal is not to pull the spam sites offline. Blue Security is just trying to make the system less profitable by forcing spammers to sift through the complaint emails.
I have to add that this scheme is certainly bordering on immoral; as of now, though, I still support it. It's like killing someone who is about to kill you: Let the killer die and rot in hell.
Mr Reshef defended the idea against accusations that it was vigilantism or a type of Denial-of-Service attack aimed at knocking websites offline. Spam sites were warned before complaints were sent, said Mr Reshef.
Logo of Lycos Europe anti-spam campaign, Lycos Europe
Lycos shut down its anti-spam campaign following complaints
"This is very different from computerised attack on sites you pick at random," he said. "What we have done here is take the approach of consumer protest and boycotts and moved it to the internet."
This approach is similar to that of a boycott, as is mentioned in the article. If you boycott a company, you end up screwing people who rely on that company's products: But you do it anyway.
Furthermore, Reshef stated that spam sites were being warned before the complaints were sent. The fact that they persist on spamming, in my eyes, makes them responsible for the collateral damage.
Finally, the goal is not to pull the spam sites offline. Blue Security is just trying to make the system less profitable by forcing spammers to sift through the complaint emails.
I have to add that this scheme is certainly bordering on immoral; as of now, though, I still support it. It's like killing someone who is about to kill you: <i>Let the killer die and rot in hell.</i>
Actually, IE now supports the PNG format. Google would never alienate the majority: It seems that we'll have to let Microsoft improve IE at its own pace. It worked for Longhorn! Wait.
As much as I love OS X, Microsoft needs Kay a lot more than Apple does. If they were to hire him, it'd benefit us all in the long run.
I just hope that the RIAA doesn't fine me for listening, against my will, to "This Love" playing in the background of a horrible blog I've been forced to read!
Apple supposedly sells one-button mice so that developers won't assume that all users own two-button mice. In the Windows world, because developers hold this assumption, it has become commonplace to place everything in the context menu. This makes for extremely poor usability.
What you're advocating is precisely what Apple is trying to get away from.
OS X can definetely learn from Windows, but not in this respect. At least in my opinion.
The day Apple releases widescreen iBooks is the day OS X will run on Intel! Mwahahaha!
Oh. Wait.
The glare is awful, but I'd find it hard to believe that the glossiness of the screen is solely responsible for the brightness.
Then again, people who buy this must think it is!
I can certainly understand that this is amazing technology, but new technological innovations only succeed if the higher price points deliver better experiences than do available products. Frankly, this technology seems only marginally better than that of two typical televisions, adjacent to one another. I don't understand the economics behind this planned release.
Perhaps piracy would technically be easier with this system, but you have to remember that most people really don't like stealing. The iTunes Music Store is blossoming for this very reason. Freeman's point is a good one: If a system like the iTunes Music Store (but for movies) precedes possible rampant piracy (which is certainly growing in the movie industry), the problem will be corrected before it grows. As is the case with music at the moment, you will then start seeing a lot of people legally downloading movies, and there will be no piracy mess to clean up (as has been the case with music). I certainly believe that this system would thwart far more piracy than it would encourage.
You're missing his point. The state of the air that is touching you at the moment that you travel back in time is something that you know. Thus, you will be preventing from even breathing air when you travel back in time, because that would alter the exact state of the air in the future. Of course, you also can't die. How does someone stay alive without breathing? That makes no sense. I'm not saying that time travel is impossible, but it would have to be quite different than this model, which simply makes no sense.
If I were you, I'd step back for a moment, and realize that Apple's economists are probably well aware of any implications of the company's decisions. Apple is a company, and their resistance to distributing the OS has nothing to do with a "holier than thou" mindset. They decided that this approach would benefit them in the long term, and I have to agree with them.
OS X would probably not eventually "win." One of the reasons that Mac OS X operates almost flawlessly is that it runs on standardized hardware. Take that away, and problems will arise, just as they do with Windows. Moreover, most people use Windows right now. As good as OS X is, it's not good enough to warrant a switch for many people. I'd say that the user base of OS X would triple, but at that point, viruses would start to appear on OS X. It is certainly a more secure operating system, but by no means perfect. Once viruses start appearing on OS X, the surge of users would slow down. With the lack of hardware/software integration, nothing would be that special about OS X anymore, and the user base wouldn't come close to that of Windows. Apple would have to rely on the iPod to crawl out of the grave.
...but hell, what do I know? I'm just an engineering student :).
People don't drop out of college because they're stupid. If you're there, you can almost always handle it. It's just a matter of how motivated you are, as well as external factors (such as those involving finances, love, etc.). You might think that smarter people need less motivation, and therefore it's other people who drop out, but that's a fallacy. Smarter people may need a different form of motivation, but they definitely need motivation. Those who lack motivation are the ones to drop out, regardless of brain power.