Attack the person's stated position, not the person.
Doesn't matter what religion they are, or if they've been laid. Argue their position, not their imagined state in the world. You dick.
From synopsis: "[he has discovered that] chordal music can be represented in a higher-dimensional space". Eh? You can represent just about anything in "higher dimensional space". It's not a discovery. The patterns revealed in higher dimensional space, however, might be interesting....
The lyric following the above I always heard as "The have come for your UNCLE niece", which always confused me....:/ (actually lyric is "uncool niece")
Check out some of Scott McClouds's books - especially "Understanding Comics", where he talks about how comics can be very powerful specifically because a depiction of a person - the protagonist - that isn't completely photo realistic, and looks comicy (vague) in some way - allows the reader to put themselves more in the protagonists shoes.
Making the race of a protagonist unclear in a computer game is much the same effect - the reader/player can imagine themselves in those shoes....
Please don't assist the US propaganda by going along with their newspeak. Insurgents? The US are the insurgents - look up the meaning of insurgent. What the US call "insurgents" are people from the local area overthrowing an occupying force, not insurgents.
With the large amounts of slashdot readers prepared to do moderation and meta-moderation etc., could some shill-detection scanning of submitted articles be in order? (I'm thinking by hand, rather than automated). It's usually not hard to spot affiliate IDs in the hyperlinks, for example.
Not sure about American law versus British or elsewhere, but there have been convictions without bodies, yes:
http://www.sclomax.co.uk/glynrazzell.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s18119 08.htmhttp://tafkac.org/legal/no_body_not_no_murder.html
One of the links seems to be saying that Texas is the only state where you aboslutely have to have a body.
I recall reading about a case a while back (can't find cite now, sorry) whereby there was no body but the cops found prosthetic body organ parts of some sort (heart valve? or similar) in a vat of acid. It was enough to convict the main suspect of the murder.
Look; if you can set off fireworks safely with a cigar then you can set it off just as safely electronically.
I disagree. I think that any system that has inherent dangers in it tends to be made more dangerous by adding complexity, and adding electronics for ignition is adding complexity.
You'd need to take some primitive precautions to avoid having the controller ignite prematurely, but it's easily handled by a large switch on the main power feed.
It's hard to know if people (including the the OP) are very knowledgable in certain area, and encouraging them to set off fireworks in automated ways isn't wise IMO. They might not perceive much risk, but it can still be there.
I disagree. I play a number of instruments and have fiddled with drums and keyboard. You'll note that when he's playing drums, he never has to prepare for the next hit. He's never thinking about what comes next. Same on the piano. He's just hunched over with two fingers outstretched.
Although you can bet that he's completely overplaying the "I've never touched a keyboard or drumkit before" in terms of his 'hunched' posture etc. He might even have a midi keyboard, etc.
He's not asking for a way to set of handgrenades and claymores here.
Hmm. Am I to assume that you think that fireworks (in particular starburst terminating ones) aren't in effect just high explosives? Do you think that being close to a starburst wouldn't fuck you up big time?
What he wants is to set off normal, legal fireworks (well that's what we have to assume anyway),
Because it's legal, it must necessarily be safe? Tell that to all the scarred/burned/dead people.
doing that electronically is much safer than doing it with the old cigar as most people do.
You are wrong. Electronic ignition (amateur in particular) is not safer, and in fact usually more dangerous, because:
use of electronics implies bigger fireworks, and more set off per unit time - hence more present danger
lighting a fuse by hand is all very manual, it is hard to get it wrong (apart from returning to an apparently unlit firework), and it is hard to 'accidentally' light a firework at the wrong time, which is possible with electronic triggers.
you can't accidentally set off all your fireworks at once with a hand held lighter
I'd suggest using a short length of constantan wire (5cm or so) wrapped around the fuse....
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should....
This is stupidest idea I've heard in a while. You are dealing with explosives. You are proposing writing (hands-off) software for controlling explosives. How often do people make programming errors? Often. But oftentimes those errors won't be affecting explosives being set off. This is soooo not a good idea. Also the 'hands off' aspect is worrying - as others have noted, you want constant positive input (i.e. holding a switch down) to allow the show to continue - if switch opens, the stuff stops. And this switch must literally be a switch in the 'hardware', nothing to do with the computer end.
Please, next time you get any smart ideas, run them by some adults again...
Am I the only one to be suspicious about the impartiality of this article?
Check out the links. Quite a lot go through the weird ass domain name JDOQOCY.COM. Do a whois on this domain and you'll find the registrant is "Commission Junction". Hmm, impartial, NOT.
>All that aside, obviously these people (if they did it) are complete and utter morons.
>One does not light a Molotov Cocktail and place it on a porch.
Well, yes, they do, if all they want to do is stage a threat without actually hurting anyone. Do you really think they would be so dumb as to not know how a molotov cocktail is properly used?
P.S. I do realise that they already mess about with actors faces by removing pimples, smoothing the skin etc. It just seems that actually editing their expression is a whole different ball park. It's not them acting any more, it's CGI.
I think in some aspects this is bad news for films. I'm completely turned off the idea of watching a movie if I think that they've messed about with an actor's face in order to improve on their expression or fix something. I think it's horrendous. I wonder how many actors will shortly have in their contract that film makers can't animate over their face without written consent?
Speaking of which, I wonder how many actors currently have written into their contracts/estates that their image can't be raped after their death in cheesy car adverts etc?
Slashdot Mirror
Attack the person's stated position, not the person. Doesn't matter what religion they are, or if they've been laid. Argue their position, not their imagined state in the world. You dick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior
From synopsis: "[he has discovered that] chordal music can be represented in a higher-dimensional space". Eh? You can represent just about anything in "higher dimensional space". It's not a discovery. The patterns revealed in higher dimensional space, however, might be interesting....
Check out the "Moot" project: http://www.zenadsl6186.zen.co.uk/ Hopes to make RIPA act moot...
The lyric following the above I always heard as "The have come for your UNCLE niece", which always confused me.... :/ (actually lyric is "uncool niece")
Generalizations are always dangerous ...
Nice generalization there, chum.
This makes sense.
Check out some of Scott McClouds's books - especially "Understanding Comics", where he talks about how comics can be very powerful specifically because a depiction of a person - the protagonist - that isn't completely photo realistic, and looks comicy (vague) in some way - allows the reader to put themselves more in the protagonists shoes.
Making the race of a protagonist unclear in a computer game is much the same effect - the reader/player can imagine themselves in those shoes....
Please don't assist the US propaganda by going along with their newspeak. Insurgents? The US are the insurgents - look up the meaning of insurgent. What the US call "insurgents" are people from the local area overthrowing an occupying force, not insurgents.
First thing I thought when I saw this page was: another viral from Sony themselves...
With the large amounts of slashdot readers prepared to do moderation and meta-moderation etc., could some shill-detection scanning of submitted articles be in order? (I'm thinking by hand, rather than automated). It's usually not hard to spot affiliate IDs in the hyperlinks, for example.
Not sure about American law versus British or elsewhere, but there have been convictions without bodies, yes: http://www.sclomax.co.uk/glynrazzell.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s18119 08.htm
http://tafkac.org/legal/no_body_not_no_murder.html
One of the links seems to be saying that Texas is the only state where you aboslutely have to have a body.
I recall reading about a case a while back (can't find cite now, sorry) whereby there was no body but the cops found prosthetic body organ parts of some sort (heart valve? or similar) in a vat of acid. It was enough to convict the main suspect of the murder.
Look; if you can set off fireworks safely with a cigar then you can set it off just as safely electronically. I disagree. I think that any system that has inherent dangers in it tends to be made more dangerous by adding complexity, and adding electronics for ignition is adding complexity. You'd need to take some primitive precautions to avoid having the controller ignite prematurely, but it's easily handled by a large switch on the main power feed. It's hard to know if people (including the the OP) are very knowledgable in certain area, and encouraging them to set off fireworks in automated ways isn't wise IMO. They might not perceive much risk, but it can still be there.
M80s are perfectly safe when used properly
If that's the case, they've completely failed as a weapon then.
I disagree. I play a number of instruments and have fiddled with drums and keyboard. You'll note that when he's playing drums, he never has to prepare for the next hit. He's never thinking about what comes next. Same on the piano. He's just hunched over with two fingers outstretched.
Although you can bet that he's completely overplaying the "I've never touched a keyboard or drumkit before" in terms of his 'hunched' posture etc. He might even have a midi keyboard, etc.
Hmm. Am I to assume that you think that fireworks (in particular starburst terminating ones) aren't in effect just high explosives? Do you think that being close to a starburst wouldn't fuck you up big time?
What he wants is to set off normal, legal fireworks (well that's what we have to assume anyway),
Because it's legal, it must necessarily be safe? Tell that to all the scarred/burned/dead people.
doing that electronically is much safer than doing it with the old cigar as most people do.
You are wrong. Electronic ignition (amateur in particular) is not safer, and in fact usually more dangerous, because:
- use of electronics implies bigger fireworks, and more set off per unit time - hence more present danger
- lighting a fuse by hand is all very manual, it is hard to get it wrong (apart from returning to an apparently unlit firework), and it is hard to 'accidentally' light a firework at the wrong time, which is possible with electronic triggers.
- you can't accidentally set off all your fireworks at once with a hand held lighter
I'd suggest using a short length of constantan wire (5cm or so) wrapped around the fuse....Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should....
This is stupidest idea I've heard in a while. You are dealing with explosives. You are proposing writing (hands-off) software for controlling explosives. How often do people make programming errors? Often. But oftentimes those errors won't be affecting explosives being set off. This is soooo not a good idea. Also the 'hands off' aspect is worrying - as others have noted, you want constant positive input (i.e. holding a switch down) to allow the show to continue - if switch opens, the stuff stops. And this switch must literally be a switch in the 'hardware', nothing to do with the computer end.
Please, next time you get any smart ideas, run them by some adults again...
Am I the only one to be suspicious about the impartiality of this article? Check out the links. Quite a lot go through the weird ass domain name JDOQOCY.COM. Do a whois on this domain and you'll find the registrant is "Commission Junction". Hmm, impartial, NOT.
Slightly OT but.... someone needs to use a dictionary. Plaintively means "mournfully" or "sorrowfully", which I assume isn't what the author intended.
>All that aside, obviously these people (if they did it) are complete and utter morons. >One does not light a Molotov Cocktail and place it on a porch. Well, yes, they do, if all they want to do is stage a threat without actually hurting anyone. Do you really think they would be so dumb as to not know how a molotov cocktail is properly used?
Just FYI, that is, without a doubt, the most perfect answer I've ever heard to "I have nothing to hide".
Eh? "I have nothing to hide" isn't even something that demands an answer.
If I don't have anything to hide, why do they need to watch me?
Because they don't know whether or not you're hiding anything yet. They find that out by watching you.
Remember, the quote is "IF you don't have anything to hide...", not "You don't have anything to hide..."
P.S. I do realise that they already mess about with actors faces by removing pimples, smoothing the skin etc. It just seems that actually editing their expression is a whole different ball park. It's not them acting any more, it's CGI.
I think in some aspects this is bad news for films. I'm completely turned off the idea of watching a movie if I think that they've messed about with an actor's face in order to improve on their expression or fix something. I think it's horrendous. I wonder how many actors will shortly have in their contract that film makers can't animate over their face without written consent? Speaking of which, I wonder how many actors currently have written into their contracts/estates that their image can't be raped after their death in cheesy car adverts etc?
Wouldn't a colon be more appropriate, viz. "Einstein: Husband, Lover, and Father"?
For a moment there I saw 'colon' and thought you were calling him an arse. No, seriously....
Like I said, shoulder + huge chip. Your problem, your anonymous coward hissy fit, not mine. Grow up.