Most readers will trade off accuracy for someone who's openly in their philosophical or political corner.
Too cynical. Excluding pathologies, I doubt that anyone knowingly accepts unnecessarily wrong news.
Another segment will trade off accuracy for immediacy.
Yes. And, as far as I know, that segment comprises everyone who reads their news prior to the death of the Sun.
I'd heartily agree that most of us do seek our facts from a source that presents them pre-cooked according to our preferred cuisine. (Neither you nor I, of course.) But I think calling such cookery misinformation imposes an impossible standard.
I have to say, though, that if your opinion of SF is so low that you think only " an elusive sci-fi title (or two)" will make your cut, I'm not terribly optimistic.
My point's not all that elitist. "Great" sci-fi (e.g., Arthur C. Clarke) is usually so deemed for its scientific perspicacity/creativity...but is (understandably) lacking in the enteratining and/or engaging qualities we tend to demand from "genre-less" fiction. But, very occasionally, a book holds its own in both arenas. Any dearth of such books merely reflects the small intersection of multiple high percentiles.
Reading the awards-list makes me wish I read more sci-fi.
I recently finished a piece of horror-fiction, Michael Gruber's Tropic of Night, whose literary quality was high enough not to require the reader to make allowances for the genre. In my experience, such a requirement is a pervasive shortcoming of both the horror and sci-fi fields.
If there are astute slashDot readers out there who understand my lament, and who know an elusive sci-fi title (or two) that does manage the rare crossover, please identify.
"Saudi Arabia says explicitly that they censor the internet to preserve their Islamic culture and heritage, which is a pretty valid claim to make," explained the lab's Graeme Bunton.
"Preservation of culture" is the province of museums, and cultural terrariums like Colonial Williamsburg.
Moreover, it's anathema to a living, evolving society. (This is true even in the good ol' USA, as with Wal-Mart vs. Smallville.) You can't legislate nostalgia.
The author's stated intention is to [present] interactive fiction (IF) as a legitimate literary field.
Obviously, some of these games are better than others...which makes them fair game (so to speak) for comparison and critique.
But, trying to rank them alongside legitimate literature seems mighty presumptuous.
Legitimate authors struggle to perfect their reader's experience, and would never deliberately abandon it to dice-throws. If it happens that some interactive game is found to harbor a deep and worthwhile intellectual point, then a "real" author, rather than writing that game, will tell the story of a character who plays it.
Sounds like perpetual motion to me, too. But here it is at the U.S. Patent Office (#5,594,281):
On a rotor which is fixed to a rotatable rotating shaft, a plurality of permanent magnets are disposed along the direction of rotation such that the same magnetic pole type thereof face outward. In the same way, balancers are disposed on the rotor for balancing the rotation of this rotor. Each of the permanent magnets is obliquely arranged with respect to the radial direction line of the rotor. At the outer periphery of the rotor, an electromagnet is disposed facing this rotor, with this electromagnet intermittently energized based on the rotation of the rotor. According to the magnetic rotating apparatus of the present invention, rotational energy can be efficiently obtained from permanent magnets. This is made possible by minimizing as much as possible current supplied to the electromagnets, so that only a required amount of electrical energy is supplied to the electromagnets.
Indeed, even the "best" videocammed movies mostly suck. It's hard to imagine they cause significant revenue loss (i.e., from consumers who'd otherwise pay for the same content).
So, you have to suspect that the idea behind the cam-nabbing is merely to further publicize the Just-See-No guilt campaign.
Suppose a new filter/protocol/etc. were developed which instantly blocked 99.9% of spammers. Might the inevitable remaining few become somehow particularly "lethal", e.g., to a then more credulous public?
(Sure, bandwidth would be conserved. But doesn't Moore's Law render bandwidth an eventual non-issue?)
Indeed, an obvious instance of parody, and therefore equally obviously protected.
Why, then, is there no mention of any counterclaim against MasterCard for a frivolous lawsuit (which, I think, covers such plainly deliberate harrassment)?
The retiree who lives across my street is able to watch me leave my house each morning. She thus can chronolog my work-habits, mood, weight, fashion-sense, etc.
I've petitioned the town council to have her windows boarded up.
I may be naive, but I thought the robot-dance footage was astonishing.
My immediate reaction was that it was CGI movie fakery. In fact, many moviegoers think the "perfect" motion of CGI objects is not merely unrealistic but also physically impossible.
Our immune system has been evolving for hundreds of millions years, and it will attack everything that doesn't have the right 'password'.
If, lo, eons ago, a pathogen emerged that quickly wiped out "everything", and thus retreated into a relatively dormant environment (as the herpes virus does in you)...then boating on Lake Vida might need more than sun-block, after all.
From the article - Like, what will lawyers do if self-driving cars get in accidents?
Your car will eventually become an internet device (like everything else). Then, ad-push technology will sense your next collision, and with lightning speed emblazon the logo of Dewey, Cheatham & Howe across the airbag rushing toward your face.
...Even well-motivated IT workers must surely be a self-selected sample of personality Type 'M's. (Masochistic, meticulous, monomaniacal...) There's a reason they (we) have chosen to interface with machines...and it probably doesn't often correlate with a smiley-faced existential view. In other words, ask IT workers if they're "very happy" about anything.
Long ago, many viewed Bell Labs as the quintessential patent-juggernaut, able virtually to own the world's technological future. If that view was at all valid then, wouldn't it apply nowadays to AT&T Labs?
And, if it does apply, is there anything to be learned from the lab's current demise, i.e., with respect to characterizing patents as a mere agent of dominance for Big Industry?
Sooner or later somebody doing this - anonymous or not - is going to get Slasdot sued... It's a copyrighted piece of work
Yes, but the suit would ask for damages. At this point in Salon's evolution, I suggest that reprinting this (fairly entertaining IMO) article serves only to enhance Salon's reputation as a quality publication.
Illegal and arrogant by the reprinter? Sure. Damaging? Less sure.
(Of course, when Salon can argue that its site-admissions are materially down because of rampant infringement, then the horse trans-chromatizes...)
How long until we see an artificial salesagent (i.e., not felt as an interpersonal burden)...that's secretly operated by a real one? (...like the 18th-century chess-playing machine that actually housed a dwarf...)
Except for a slew of one-liners about minivans circling Uranus, this doesn't sound productive of anything remotely useful.
Computer simulations are now commonplace, and seem like a much more efficent conceptual instigator. If you haven't already seen it, check out this (slightly) related web site:
PowersOf10
The problem is that you have to decide what it means to be "adult content".
The problem is inherently intractable, when viewed from the top like that. There will always be a large, single-minded group intent on writing its taxonomy onto everyone's sky. And, where there's one group, there's many.
The only approach that's even theoretically workable is from the other end, via opt-in domains, e.g. '.angel' or '.moral'. Then, every sect that finds itself blessed with the One True View could spawn its own hallowed domain, and guard it with the vigilance of Rottweilers.
Slashdot Mirror
Too cynical. Excluding pathologies, I doubt that anyone knowingly accepts unnecessarily wrong news.
Another segment will trade off accuracy for immediacy.
Yes. And, as far as I know, that segment comprises everyone who reads their news prior to the death of the Sun.
I'd heartily agree that most of us do seek our facts from a source that presents them pre-cooked according to our preferred cuisine. (Neither you nor I, of course.) But I think calling such cookery misinformation imposes an impossible standard.
My point's not all that elitist. "Great" sci-fi (e.g., Arthur C. Clarke) is usually so deemed for its scientific perspicacity/creativity ...but is (understandably) lacking in the enteratining and/or engaging qualities we tend to demand from "genre-less" fiction. But, very occasionally, a book holds its own in both arenas. Any dearth of such books merely reflects the small intersection of multiple high percentiles.
Reading the awards-list makes me wish I read more sci-fi.
I recently finished a piece of horror-fiction, Michael Gruber's Tropic of Night, whose literary quality was high enough not to require the reader to make allowances for the genre. In my experience, such a requirement is a pervasive shortcoming of both the horror and sci-fi fields.
If there are astute slashDot readers out there who understand my lament, and who know an elusive sci-fi title (or two) that does manage the rare crossover, please identify.
"Preservation of culture" is the province of museums, and cultural terrariums like Colonial Williamsburg.
Moreover, it's anathema to a living, evolving society. (This is true even in the good ol' USA, as with Wal-Mart vs. Smallville.) You can't legislate nostalgia.
Obviously, some of these games are better than others ...which makes them fair game (so to speak) for comparison and critique.
But, trying to rank them alongside legitimate literature seems mighty presumptuous.
Legitimate authors struggle to perfect their reader's experience, and would never deliberately abandon it to dice-throws. If it happens that some interactive game is found to harbor a deep and worthwhile intellectual point, then a "real" author, rather than writing that game, will tell the story of a character who plays it.
Albert Einstein: "God does not play dice with the universe."
John McCain (while campaigning): "One advantage of having Alzheimer's is that you get to hide your own Easter eggs."
From the article: "[Random shuffling] makes their music collection even more exiting and mysterious." ('Exiting' is just how I'd have put it.)
If students are into academia???
Wonder what UofAberdeen's tuition is.
Okay. But watch out for the dip.
On a rotor which is fixed to a rotatable rotating shaft, a plurality of permanent magnets are disposed along the direction of rotation such that the same magnetic pole type thereof face outward. In the same way, balancers are disposed on the rotor for balancing the rotation of this rotor. Each of the permanent magnets is obliquely arranged with respect to the radial direction line of the rotor. At the outer periphery of the rotor, an electromagnet is disposed facing this rotor, with this electromagnet intermittently energized based on the rotation of the rotor. According to the magnetic rotating apparatus of the present invention, rotational energy can be efficiently obtained from permanent magnets. This is made possible by minimizing as much as possible current supplied to the electromagnets, so that only a required amount of electrical energy is supplied to the electromagnets.
So, you have to suspect that the idea behind the cam-nabbing is merely to further publicize the Just-See-No guilt campaign.
Suppose a new filter/protocol/etc. were developed which instantly blocked 99.9% of spammers. Might the inevitable remaining few become somehow particularly "lethal", e.g., to a then more credulous public?
(Sure, bandwidth would be conserved. But doesn't Moore's Law render bandwidth an eventual non-issue?)
Why, then, is there no mention of any counterclaim against MasterCard for a frivolous lawsuit (which, I think, covers such plainly deliberate harrassment)?
(I'm no trial-judge, but I pay one on TV...)
I've petitioned the town council to have her windows boarded up.
My immediate reaction was that it was CGI movie fakery. In fact, many moviegoers think the "perfect" motion of CGI objects is not merely unrealistic but also physically impossible.
Watch this footage, and think again.
If, lo, eons ago, a pathogen emerged that quickly wiped out "everything", and thus retreated into a relatively dormant environment (as the herpes virus does in you) ...then boating on Lake Vida might need more than sun-block, after all.
(Heh, heh...)
Your car will eventually become an internet device (like everything else). Then, ad-push technology will sense your next collision, and with lightning speed emblazon the logo of Dewey, Cheatham & Howe across the airbag rushing toward your face.
Technology, in its quest to mimic the unique abilities of the human being, chooses a sport that mostly outlaws the opposable thumb.
Not only does money talk, it also listens.
Isn't this a bit like watching the Fox News Channel?
And, to generalize in a different direction...
(Was that too dark?)
And, if it does apply, is there anything to be learned from the lab's current demise, i.e., with respect to characterizing patents as a mere agent of dominance for Big Industry?
Yes, but the suit would ask for damages. At this point in Salon's evolution, I suggest that reprinting this (fairly entertaining IMO) article serves only to enhance Salon's reputation as a quality publication.
Illegal and arrogant by the reprinter? Sure. Damaging? Less sure.
(Of course, when Salon can argue that its site-admissions are materially down because of rampant infringement, then the horse trans-chromatizes...)
How long until we see an artificial salesagent (i.e., not felt as an interpersonal burden) ...that's secretly operated by a real one? (...like the 18th-century chess-playing machine that actually housed a dwarf...)
Computer simulations are now commonplace, and seem like a much more efficent conceptual instigator. If you haven't already seen it, check out this (slightly) related web site: PowersOf10
The problem is inherently intractable, when viewed from the top like that. There will always be a large, single-minded group intent on writing its taxonomy onto everyone's sky. And, where there's one group, there's many.
The only approach that's even theoretically workable is from the other end, via opt-in domains, e.g. '.angel' or '.moral'. Then, every sect that finds itself blessed with the One True View could spawn its own hallowed domain, and guard it with the vigilance of Rottweilers.