Using nothing more than signal chemicals (something like growth hormones) applied at the right spot during the right moment of embryo growth, it's possible to make chickens grow teeth. A different substance applied at the base of the spine during early embryo formation gets you a chicken with a long, dinosaur-like tail. You can do something similar to the wings too, unbending them in a way that makes them more like handclaws.
So in short, the average chicken is just some growth hormones short of becoming a full-blown cockatrice. The kind of hormones we really love to feed to our barnyard animals, such as chickens.
Right. So basic common sense should tell you to limit your exposure to danger. Growing a dinosaur the size of a dog or cow = a great idea. A couple dozen T-Rexs and Raptors, all at once, with no experience... not so much.
A dinosaur the size of a dog could escape and hide, potentially wreaking havoc on local ecosystems. A T-Rex, on the other hand, is far too large to do so.
Limiting your exposure to danger means knowing what the dangers are, and that's not necessarily obvious.
I've had actual barred lawyers trying to convince me that they understood logic simply because they took critical thinking.
That's not exactly a fair example. Being a lawyer is about winning an argument, not figuring out where it logically leads. As such, it is very likely that a lawyer understands logic very well - for how else could he pervert it for his client's benefit?
It gives students confidence that they can question every argument... even a solidly proven one.
You can, and should, question even proven arguments. Who's to say that the proof is correct, or that the very axioms you used aren't self-contradictory?
One need remember the full probability course to understand what is a correlation and why it doesn't imply causation.
Correlation doesn't imply causation because nothing implies causation.The whole existence of causality - much less any specific causal relationship - is impossible to prove. All observed correlation could be a result of either random chance or a hidden third variable(s). It gets ludicrously unlikely pretty fast, but it can never be ruled out by any finite amount of data.
But of course it's impossible to live that way, so in real life we pretend that causality exists and simply try to isolate particular correlations as well as possible, then come up with the simplest possible model that explains them. The problem is that this means that correlation does, in fact, imply causation for some values of "imply", which leaves open all kinds of loopholes for people with agendas to argue for or against particular causal relationships.
But then a critical thinking students is unlikely to understand what is an implication.
In strict logical sense, "A implies B" means that "if A is true, then B must also be true". Unfortunately, this implies a causal relationship, which is unprovable since the very existence of causality is unprovable, thus most of the time when people speak of implication they actually mean "if A is true, then B is very likely true". So it depends on the context.
If you ask me, the idea is to kill off PC gaming in this manner so that everyone's forced to use a console where everything is locked down by definition.
Maybe, but let's not forget that console makers want their cut of console game sales and that cut is unlikely to go down should PC no longer provide competition, so it's a pretty stupid idea. Not that that'll stop Ubisoft, of course.
Not that it really matters: I was already avoiding Ubisoft titles, and now that policy has been set in stone.
And if you want to evade police, you need to think like the police. I.e. run their algorithm, and commit your crime where the algorithm says it is least likely...
You need not only the algorithm but also its input to predict the output. And if you have the know-how to get both, why would you prey on people at street corners instead of stealing credit card info online? It's a crime with lower risks and higher profits and you can do it from the comfort of an office rather than in the streets.
I could have gotten at least one or two people fired by reporting them to their employer,
Which is in itself a huge problem for free speech in a society where pretty much everything depends on your ability to stay employed. Eventually, we have to decide between giving up real name policies (I mean banning them through law), free speech, or the idea that people have to work for a (decent) living.
Currently, I'd say that it's the free speech that gets the axe.
The whole discussion doesn't even make sense in the USA, where the founding legalese was dicsussed together using pseudonymity.
It doesn't make sense to you that a country that seceded from an empire in a revolution plotted under the veil of anonymity is trying to remove anonymity now that it's an empire itself? Really?
Eventually people will realise that employers Google these things, and that posting nasty stuff means you can't get work.
And not posting nasty stuff won't help you either, unless your name is unique in the whole wide world. And this, of course, makes everyone "unhirable", leading this system to its well-deserved collapse. Time will tell if the concept of free speech dies first.
My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars. My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash and he's great at his job.
You don't need any kind of education to sit on a pile of cash and look pretty. However, most of us don't have a revenue of hundreds of millions of dollars and thus can't hire people to do the math for us. So, the question is not "does a multimillionaire need to know X", the question is "does Joe Average need to know X".
Isn't this just another form of discrimination? We've finally gotten (mostly) past looking at people's race, religion, sexual preference, and skin color but we can now look at their willingness to keep nothing personal and private and hold that against them? How is this legal?
You can't change your race, but you can easily create a Facebook account that contains nothing useful or interesting, send friend requests to random people and accept any that come your way. If this becomes a real issue I'm sure we can automate the whole process so that you can have virtual Facebook presence without having to actually visit the damn thing yourself. As an added bonus having various Facebots interact with each other trying to pretend they are humans while other bots try to spot them should help advance AI quite a bit.
It also forces people to support game controllers for their Android games. Simulating twin sticks with a touch screen is pathetic when the system supports any USB game controller that would also work on a PC.
Not bothering to support game controllers in a game meant for mobile devices is perfectly reasonable. Not only would you need to carry a controller with you, but the device would need to supply power to it, thus depleting the battery even faster - and battery life is already the most important limiting factor for mobile devices.
The key is to pull those aside who are most mature and sit down with them and say "Look, we've got this new girl starting, and I don't want her to have a hard time. Also it's a bit unfair on the existing women in the workplace. Can you tell the other guys to cut it out if they make remarks the girls may find sexist?". If they don't do this then you have more serious problems, you've got no respect from your employees, and you probably need to clean house anyway, so putting them up in front of a sexual harrasment warning is probably necessary.
Do you also give them a managerial position and a rise to go with these new babysitting duties? Because simply asking them to act as unofficial managers for their peers with neither the power nor the compensation for such duties seems pretty exploitative to me.
Hatta is a thousanaire. He has no problems that I would worry about. If he doesn't like what he's doing, he can quit and still buy all the food he can eat.
No, he can't. Even if he only eats the bare minimum of cheapest gruel available, he'll still run out of money long before he'll run out of natural lifespan. And that's assuming he lives under a bridge.
A billionaire doesn't need to worry about getting the material necessities of life ever again, but a thousanaire does. They aren't even remotely equivalent, no matter how much worse off someone living in Somalia is.
Seriously, you can only do things to lower your odds of catching a cold or the flu but for HIV, it's 100% human caused and human spread via direct actions that if people stopped taking them, it would go away in 1 generation. But whatever, stupid, reckless, careless people will find some way to get themselves killed, HIV or otherwise.
Yeah, all the stupid babies who don't have the good sense to test their mother for the infection before being born deserve their AIDS. And rape victims clearly had it coming too. Not to mention fools who need a blood transfusion for any reason.
With your capacity for reason and empathy you'd make a great catholic bishop.
By properly informing the passenger there is no expectation of privacy.
Expectation of privacy is not merely about knowing whether you are being watched, it's also about whether you should be watched. For example, consider a landlord installing CCTV cameras in an apartment he rents, connected to his living room television: is it OK if he puts it in the contract? What about a government tracking every square inch of its territory with cameras with facial recognition, logging all your movements into a database - is that OK if it's public knowledge? Or how about some pervert stalking you 24/7 - is that OK if he sends you a postcard saying that he will?
None of this means that cabs shouldn't have cameras, just that your quoted argument is wrong.
Once PCs went multicore they passed "good enough" and went into "insanely overpowered" for the vast majority.
Computers are vastly overpowered for the majority of users because an application or use case can't start gaining users before at least the top-end computers can run it decently, and by the time it's spread to common use the average computer has caught up and exceeded its requirements. I don't see any reason why this would change in the future.
Hell do you think anything Suzy the checkout girl is doing on a PC is gonna stress even a 5 year old Phenom I triple? Of course not, so she doesn't buy a new one until the old one breaks.
And 5 years ago, when that Phenom I triple was brand new, did Suzy use it to watch Youtube videos? Or did she simply browse the Web and read emails? And 5 years before that, did Suzy even have a computer? How about 5 years before that? Or yet 5 years earlier?
So the summary is implying that several years ago when Linux Steam work began, somehow Valve knew that Windows 8 would be bad even before Microsoft had done much with it beyond initial planning?
Didn't everyone? Windows 7 is OK, so the next Windows release must suck. It's a law of nature.
Besides, with the ongoing IP wars, any commercial operating system will almost certainly include built-in support for DRM mechanisms for the next few years, which necessarily makes them defective by design.
Well there are full size touch screen, problem previously was the UI for them.
And it still is. Specifically, you need to hold your hands extended before you for prolonged periods of time and make huge, sweeping motions, lose two mouse buttoms and the wheel, and trying to type will require on-screen keyboard which obscures the screen contents and is slow to use (since you can't touch-type). And on top of that you'll get grease on the screen.
Tablets use a touch screen because they can't fit in a keyboard and mouse, not because it's an even remotely good solution.
Slashdot Mirror
So Jurassic Park is really Birds II?
Makes sense.
So in short, the average chicken is just some growth hormones short of becoming a full-blown cockatrice. The kind of hormones we really love to feed to our barnyard animals, such as chickens.
I guess we just got a new apocalypse scenario.
A dinosaur the size of a dog could escape and hide, potentially wreaking havoc on local ecosystems. A T-Rex, on the other hand, is far too large to do so.
Limiting your exposure to danger means knowing what the dangers are, and that's not necessarily obvious.
Wind causes sweat to evaporate faster, that's why it feels cool. It works whether the air is warmer or cooler than your body.
I see that you've updated from Busted Buttocks to Anal Agony. Don't forget to get Rectal Ripper when it comes!
That's not exactly a fair example. Being a lawyer is about winning an argument, not figuring out where it logically leads. As such, it is very likely that a lawyer understands logic very well - for how else could he pervert it for his client's benefit?
You can, and should, question even proven arguments. Who's to say that the proof is correct, or that the very axioms you used aren't self-contradictory?
Correlation doesn't imply causation because nothing implies causation.The whole existence of causality - much less any specific causal relationship - is impossible to prove. All observed correlation could be a result of either random chance or a hidden third variable(s). It gets ludicrously unlikely pretty fast, but it can never be ruled out by any finite amount of data.
But of course it's impossible to live that way, so in real life we pretend that causality exists and simply try to isolate particular correlations as well as possible, then come up with the simplest possible model that explains them. The problem is that this means that correlation does, in fact, imply causation for some values of "imply", which leaves open all kinds of loopholes for people with agendas to argue for or against particular causal relationships.
In strict logical sense, "A implies B" means that "if A is true, then B must also be true". Unfortunately, this implies a causal relationship, which is unprovable since the very existence of causality is unprovable, thus most of the time when people speak of implication they actually mean "if A is true, then B is very likely true". So it depends on the context.
Maybe, but let's not forget that console makers want their cut of console game sales and that cut is unlikely to go down should PC no longer provide competition, so it's a pretty stupid idea. Not that that'll stop Ubisoft, of course.
Not that it really matters: I was already avoiding Ubisoft titles, and now that policy has been set in stone.
It's one thing to tell someone their fire safety leaves something to be desired. It's another to set their house on fire.
You need not only the algorithm but also its input to predict the output. And if you have the know-how to get both, why would you prey on people at street corners instead of stealing credit card info online? It's a crime with lower risks and higher profits and you can do it from the comfort of an office rather than in the streets.
Which is in itself a huge problem for free speech in a society where pretty much everything depends on your ability to stay employed. Eventually, we have to decide between giving up real name policies (I mean banning them through law), free speech, or the idea that people have to work for a (decent) living.
Currently, I'd say that it's the free speech that gets the axe.
It doesn't make sense to you that a country that seceded from an empire in a revolution plotted under the veil of anonymity is trying to remove anonymity now that it's an empire itself? Really?
And not posting nasty stuff won't help you either, unless your name is unique in the whole wide world. And this, of course, makes everyone "unhirable", leading this system to its well-deserved collapse. Time will tell if the concept of free speech dies first.
You don't need any kind of education to sit on a pile of cash and look pretty. However, most of us don't have a revenue of hundreds of millions of dollars and thus can't hire people to do the math for us. So, the question is not "does a multimillionaire need to know X", the question is "does Joe Average need to know X".
You can't change your race, but you can easily create a Facebook account that contains nothing useful or interesting, send friend requests to random people and accept any that come your way. If this becomes a real issue I'm sure we can automate the whole process so that you can have virtual Facebook presence without having to actually visit the damn thing yourself. As an added bonus having various Facebots interact with each other trying to pretend they are humans while other bots try to spot them should help advance AI quite a bit.
Not bothering to support game controllers in a game meant for mobile devices is perfectly reasonable. Not only would you need to carry a controller with you, but the device would need to supply power to it, thus depleting the battery even faster - and battery life is already the most important limiting factor for mobile devices.
Do you also give them a managerial position and a rise to go with these new babysitting duties? Because simply asking them to act as unofficial managers for their peers with neither the power nor the compensation for such duties seems pretty exploitative to me.
They've been outlawed by the Olympic Committee as potential covers for terrorists.
It's too late. The lawyers shot first.
No, he can't. Even if he only eats the bare minimum of cheapest gruel available, he'll still run out of money long before he'll run out of natural lifespan. And that's assuming he lives under a bridge.
A billionaire doesn't need to worry about getting the material necessities of life ever again, but a thousanaire does. They aren't even remotely equivalent, no matter how much worse off someone living in Somalia is.
Yeah, all the stupid babies who don't have the good sense to test their mother for the infection before being born deserve their AIDS. And rape victims clearly had it coming too. Not to mention fools who need a blood transfusion for any reason.
With your capacity for reason and empathy you'd make a great catholic bishop.
The fact that we don't live in caves anymore?
Expectation of privacy is not merely about knowing whether you are being watched, it's also about whether you should be watched. For example, consider a landlord installing CCTV cameras in an apartment he rents, connected to his living room television: is it OK if he puts it in the contract? What about a government tracking every square inch of its territory with cameras with facial recognition, logging all your movements into a database - is that OK if it's public knowledge? Or how about some pervert stalking you 24/7 - is that OK if he sends you a postcard saying that he will?
None of this means that cabs shouldn't have cameras, just that your quoted argument is wrong.
Computers are vastly overpowered for the majority of users because an application or use case can't start gaining users before at least the top-end computers can run it decently, and by the time it's spread to common use the average computer has caught up and exceeded its requirements. I don't see any reason why this would change in the future.
And 5 years ago, when that Phenom I triple was brand new, did Suzy use it to watch Youtube videos? Or did she simply browse the Web and read emails? And 5 years before that, did Suzy even have a computer? How about 5 years before that? Or yet 5 years earlier?
"Originally one thought that if there were a half dozen large computers in this country, hidden away in research laboratories, this would take care of all requirements we had throughout the country." Except that every advance of computing power (or any other capacity for that matter) brings up possibilities one could realize if one had just a bit more. That's been true for the entirety of human history and arguably the whole history of the Universe. That the average computer users today mostly do activities their average computers can handle well in no way indicates the trend is stopping or even slowing.
Didn't everyone? Windows 7 is OK, so the next Windows release must suck. It's a law of nature.
Besides, with the ongoing IP wars, any commercial operating system will almost certainly include built-in support for DRM mechanisms for the next few years, which necessarily makes them defective by design.
And it still is. Specifically, you need to hold your hands extended before you for prolonged periods of time and make huge, sweeping motions, lose two mouse buttoms and the wheel, and trying to type will require on-screen keyboard which obscures the screen contents and is slow to use (since you can't touch-type). And on top of that you'll get grease on the screen.
Tablets use a touch screen because they can't fit in a keyboard and mouse, not because it's an even remotely good solution.