That's one helluva idea for a game. McGyver style. The new engines would finally allow for that level of sophistication. Create a database of 1000-2000 different chemical reactions, then give objects besides the standard "texture, lightness, weight" properties the property of chemical composition. Give player a lab to prepare stuff. Then let them loose on missions, using at first simple stuff like black powder, later play with transporting a canister of nitroglicerine across Manhattan in public transport, then do more advanced stuff, fill a building with hydrogen-oxygen mix, smuggle dissolved gold in fuel tanks, etc, all the cool stuff you can do with chemistry.:)
Bugs found in Beta software: No news, standard procedure. Last bugs being found and patched before release. Tons of bugs found in Beta 2: Important news. MS QA screwed up by allowing it to leave alpha stage. Programmers did the usual thing, wrote the program, but the QA screwed up a big time by passing it as beta. It's not beta, it's alpha, released prematurely. Complaining that bugs were reported in IE7 Beta is silly. Bashing the fact that a FLOOD of bugreports appeared is good slashdot frontpage news, meaning Microsoft screwed up a big time again. It's about the magnitude, and about a serious failure on the QA side during the alpha stage.
Why posting as AC and why no examples? - which pieces of w3c standard? Specific functions/entries/styles/elements. - a code written to the standard may crash the system as well. The following wabbit: #!/bin/bash $0 & $0 & will bring most Linux/UNIX systems down to their knees, despite being a perfectly correct shell script. It's a design caveat, not a language specs error. Just fix design bugs in your JS program instead of complaining the code is standard-compilant but crashes.
Sometimes the sheer hipocracy of some posters here amazes me beyond rational response.
You mean the oath of Hipocrates, to save lives no matter what and to follow the code of conduct in the job of physician? In this (IT) context that would mean that some posters fight for the good of software, for security and stability against all the odds, against corporate, governmental and law pressure, to make code better. Yes, amazing phenomenon, beyond rational response.
In other news, Australian tectonic plate heading towards Asia at full speed now!
They got the guns and monsters. That's like, 30% of the work. since the end of the design phase. Add to that maps (30%), engine (30%), piecing it all together (10%). Development phase is about 50% time. 25% for design and preparations, 25% for betatesting, bugfixes and release.
So given their current speed and progress (about 45% of the whole project) I predict DNF around 2018. That's a realistic date.
For those who bitch 3 keys are useless: These are 3 choices at a time, not 3 fixed choices all the time. You can create any menu-based user interface using it. Most have 4 keys ("up", "down", "OK/Enter", "Cancel/Leave" (usually found in cell phones). Still it can be done with 3 keys, if you give up "Cancel" and replace it with a menu position - My beeper had an interface like that, worked fine - or leave out "Up" and just cycle through the whole list with "Down" every time.
Coolness factor. Electronic ink looks, well, like ink. Nowhere near as cool as OLED display. And it's not really cheaper, at least for now - experimental technology.
Why would anyone revert a spell-correction edit? I mean, vandals are more creative than that, and spelling shouldn't be enough of an issue for edit wars?
'cause even if you do, the attacker may still happily use your domain name and it will work just fine. (and don't worry, if you don't have any associated with the IP, they will make one for you)
That's an euphemism? As opposed to "I love it" - the present perfect form implies an activity in progress, "I'm making love to Microsoft". Or simply: I fuck it.
> If that's all it is, please explain to me, precisely, the workings of "conscience."
Most likely conscience is effect of social education (upbringing), result of violating self-accepted rules, acting against your own value system. You don't feel conscience because of something you don't believe is evil. Value system is a very important piece of our view of the world - defining the "sense of life" (aims, motives, directions). Acting against these rules means lowering your own value in your own image of the universe - the only "genuine" to you. You feel your value is dropping - all normal psychological and physiological reactions kick in.
The trick is there's no a'priori value system. There's no objective Good and Evil. It's all the matter of definitions, norms, traditions, viewpoints, relations etc. You're being fed the "commonly accepted" value system during your childhood, and likely you accept it - you hear "human life is the highest value" and somehow try to follow despite all the caveats and lack of any real reason for it to be the highest value. And if you kill, you've violated this rule and conscience gets activated. But if you were taught killing is good, you'd feel no remorse.
Need more explaination?
> ANYONE whose IQ even approaches, say, 90, can practice scientific principle
But how many actually do? It's a matter of choice, preference, abilities. And averages. So, some people of IQ of 85 become scientists. Some people of IQ 140 become lumberjacks. But it's the matter of proportions. I didn't say "all scientists"... I just took a stereotypical average scientist.
> I note that your description pretty much includes the whole set of conspiracy theorists.
Oh, but it does! Did I ever say they are all right? They come to odd conclusions and live up to them, they appear odd. Doesn't matter if the conclusions are true or false, only matters if they are odd.
> And guess what? I'm no slouch in the IQ dep't, but these guys were on the ball See my other post in this story, "IQ is overrated". In other words, I agree. I'm not judging, I'm just describing. If your value system tells you you can't eat anything that isn't defined as 'kosher', I may think your value system is silly, but that doesn't mean it's good or bad. It's just very, very far from my own, and from things described in my system as "reasonable".
> "because it happens so, that there's if any then negative correlation between IQ and popularity...".
Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, and punctation wasn't really emphacized during the classes. I doubt there is a correlation between IQ and popularity. If there is any, it's negative. That is: the more intelligent you are, the less popular you are. (opposite not necessarily true...)
Why "statistical samples"? No, they are just specimens. Living proof that high-IQ people can be worthless shit as well, meaning that if you have high IQ, it means very little about your value as a human being. There may be (and possibly is) some correlation between IQ and other traits of character considered "valuable", but it's not very strong, and still IQ taken just by itself is of quite a bit lower than generally "accepted" value. So:
No, high IQ doesn't make a difference. At best it indicates possiblity of existence of difference (which happens from other reasons).
From my experience I found that being active, charismatic, experienced is more profitable in achieving success (whatever it means) than being intelligent. Being intelligent helps, sure. But not all that much. And when it comes to "value", it increases the monetary value of human resource you are, it allows solving some less common problems (most common problems are solved using experience instead.) it gives you something to boast about. Not much more profit from high IQ.
And as to the girl, one thing, I didn't find any "normal IQ" girl I'd really like yet. Always some other traits get in the way. And while some believe in "two heads are better than one" and would prefer to find a person to match them in as many traits as possible, as similar to them as they can - resulting in even higher efficiency of solving problems they are good at, but still living with the same old weaknesses, I prefer versatility, fulfilling each other - let her be good in all the things I'm poor at, and me being able to supply whatever she can't. This way together we can solve much wider range of problems to a satisfactory level. I have IQ high enough to do the puzzle solving for both of us. She has all the social skills I'd ever need. Etc.
Why are scientists seen as so "different"? Or maybe... they are? Well, most scientists are pretty intelligent people. And this applies to all the "genius level" people. High IQ is resulting in ability to analyse -everything- at higher ease than most can. Generally used in their domain, but they also think about the world as a whole, society, life, the universe, God, all that important stuff. And instead of swallowing what the "authorities" say and accepting it ("they said that on TV so it must be true" or at best "they said that on TV and I'm not smart enough to verify if it's true or not, but TV usually tells the truth, so it's likely true"), they analyse it (because they can) and come to their own conclusions, sometimes far different from what's announced by celebrities (because it happens so, that there's if any then negative correlation between IQ and popularity...) and because of living up to -their own- views on the world instead of following the crowd, they are different, living different lives. Women? That's matter of procreation, physical stimulation of organs and triggering instinctive response that causes release of hormones responsible for the feeling of pleasure. Money? That's a way to obtain resources/items, may be helpful in making life more comfortable but only up to certain amount, besides they are only a medium to obtain things/services, they are useless themselves so hoarding them is pointless. And so on and so on... Joe Sixpack just can't understand that.
First there's the requirement to define normal. Measuring IQ, not a straightforward task, places highly intelligent people out on the tail of a bell curve, but many highly intelligent people are emotionally stable and vibrant.
Yes, but that's just a different bell curve. Different standard deviation, but still a bell curve twisted one or other way. So there IS correlation. Changes in brain that allow for a genius aren't necessarily implying changes relating to "madness". But they imply -generally- a high probability significant deviation of the brain structure from the "norm" (defined as "median"). So the chance given person is "different" is proportionally higher, the further we get from the center of IQ curve. Never reaching certainity, nor even significantly approaching it, so there's still a good chance a person with IQ of 200 is completely sane and normal, but taken 100 "joe averages" and 100 guys with IQ higher than 150, you'll likely find one or two "freaks" amongst these "joes" and good 15-20 amongst the "smart guys".
And of course matter of choice of careers and built-in forcing of correlation: a job that really sucks for everyone but a few - a mathematician, a theorical physicist, a psychiatry doctor... you need special psychological traits closely related to insanity to pick one of these as your preferred career. But to succeed and actually get there you need high IQ. Therefore you see many mathematicians are crazy and most have high IQ: Conclusion: High IQ causes insanity. Wrong. Insanity combined with high IQ causes mathematicians.
Scientists less so - but I have never met a single mathematician (myself included) that wasn't slightly broken in the sanity department.
Oh, but it's not the matter of IQ, it's a matter of choice. Of course the prerequisite to become a mathematician is high IQ. So there's lots of wackos who want to become mathematicians, but only the intelligent ones can become one.
Moreover, IQ is overrated. I know one "smart guy". IQ probably about 150 or more. Chess master. Knows lots of books etc etc etc. Total asshole. He can't take a defeat. He has an ego complex, his nose-in-the-sky attitude repels everyone. Most people hate or despise him, deservedly. It isn't "meek, shy" kind of lack of social skills. It's "arrogant bastard" kind of lack of social skills. Another guy, high IQ. Cheater, thief, scoundrel of the worst kind. Stay away, don't do business with him. He got a key role in students' council, doing the organizational work quite efficiently but somehow the finances of the council were always empty. With lots of effort (and not by proving anything - impossible, just by any other legal right) we got rid of him. A small group of smart, though not nearly as smart group of students took his work. Suddenly it appeared that (with lots of effort, but...) they can manage things just as efficiently and the council can afford a xerox machine, a new computer, reduce the disco tickets price by 70% and so on. So much for high IQ.
And as for low IQ? Well, I had a girlfriend. (Really!) And honestly, she was dumb. All the way. But she was honest, she knew how to give warmth, compassion, love, lots of the really good stuff. She didn't need high IQ to feel what you felt - good empathy sense, really nice set of social skills, and still just enough of brains to make an interesting casual conversation (plus confronting the "knowledge" with the "feeling" view of things gives you quite a bit of new insight... quite useful for a nerd!)
Slashdot Mirror
That's one helluva idea for a game. :)
McGyver style.
The new engines would finally allow for that level of sophistication.
Create a database of 1000-2000 different chemical reactions, then give objects besides the standard "texture, lightness, weight" properties the property of chemical composition. Give player a lab to prepare stuff. Then let them loose on missions, using at first simple stuff like black powder, later play with transporting a canister of nitroglicerine across Manhattan in public transport, then do more advanced stuff, fill a building with hydrogen-oxygen mix, smuggle dissolved gold in fuel tanks, etc, all the cool stuff you can do with chemistry.
Cool!
Bugs found in Beta software: No news, standard procedure. Last bugs being found and patched before release.
Tons of bugs found in Beta 2: Important news. MS QA screwed up by allowing it to leave alpha stage. Programmers did the usual thing, wrote the program, but the QA screwed up a big time by passing it as beta. It's not beta, it's alpha, released prematurely.
Complaining that bugs were reported in IE7 Beta is silly. Bashing the fact that a FLOOD of bugreports appeared is good slashdot frontpage news, meaning Microsoft screwed up a big time again. It's about the magnitude, and about a serious failure on the QA side during the alpha stage.
Why posting as AC and why no examples?
- which pieces of w3c standard? Specific functions/entries/styles/elements.
- a code written to the standard may crash the system as well. The following wabbit:
#!/bin/bash
$0 &
$0 &
will bring most Linux/UNIX systems down to their knees, despite being a perfectly correct shell script. It's a design caveat, not a language specs error.
Just fix design bugs in your JS program instead of complaining the code is standard-compilant but crashes.
Nobody ever got fired over installing Microsoft products.
Sometimes the sheer hipocracy of some posters here amazes me beyond rational response.
You mean the oath of Hipocrates, to save lives no matter what and to follow the code of conduct in the job of physician? In this (IT) context that would mean that some posters fight for the good of software, for security and stability against all the odds, against corporate, governmental and law pressure, to make code better. Yes, amazing phenomenon, beyond rational response.
No. 'cause it's beta.
If Apple slapped a big "BETA" sticker on the iPods, nobody could do a shit about any faults in them.
In other news, Australian tectonic plate heading towards Asia at full speed now!
They got the guns and monsters. That's like, 30% of the work. since the end of the design phase. Add to that maps (30%), engine (30%), piecing it all together (10%). Development phase is about 50% time. 25% for design and preparations, 25% for betatesting, bugfixes and release.
So given their current speed and progress (about 45% of the whole project) I predict DNF around 2018. That's a realistic date.
For those who bitch 3 keys are useless: These are 3 choices at a time, not 3 fixed choices all the time. You can create any menu-based user interface using it. Most have 4 keys ("up", "down", "OK/Enter", "Cancel/Leave" (usually found in cell phones). Still it can be done with 3 keys, if you give up "Cancel" and replace it with a menu position - My beeper had an interface like that, worked fine - or leave out "Up" and just cycle through the whole list with "Down" every time.
Coolness factor.
Electronic ink looks, well, like ink. Nowhere near as cool as OLED display.
And it's not really cheaper, at least for now - experimental technology.
How many slaves could one buy for that much back then?
Why would anyone revert a spell-correction edit? I mean, vandals are more creative than that, and spelling shouldn't be enough of an issue for edit wars?
'cause even if you do, the attacker may still happily use your domain name and it will work just fine. (and don't worry, if you don't have any associated with the IP, they will make one for you)
Still, the "international" piece is down. I can't enter the $1 I have for some 5-6 years by now in my wallet now, Poland. :)
But I did. I fuck McDonald's all the way!
Well, likely not. I met them when they were pretty far into that kind of behaviours already. Elaborate when you find time, please.
"They're frickin BIG. No amount of money they spend is going to change that."
;)
Nope, as pointed by some poster above, mere $46bln can change that easily
That's an euphemism? As opposed to "I love it" - the present perfect form implies an activity in progress, "I'm making love to Microsoft".
Or simply:
I fuck it.
> If that's all it is, please explain to me, precisely, the workings of "conscience."
Most likely conscience is effect of social education (upbringing), result of violating self-accepted rules, acting against your own value system. You don't feel conscience because of something you don't believe is evil. Value system is a very important piece of our view of the world - defining the "sense of life" (aims, motives, directions). Acting against these rules means lowering your own value in your own image of the universe - the only "genuine" to you. You feel your value is dropping - all normal psychological and physiological reactions kick in.
The trick is there's no a'priori value system. There's no objective Good and Evil. It's all the matter of definitions, norms, traditions, viewpoints, relations etc. You're being fed the "commonly accepted" value system during your childhood, and likely you accept it - you hear "human life is the highest value" and somehow try to follow despite all the caveats and lack of any real reason for it to be the highest value. And if you kill, you've violated this rule and conscience gets activated. But if you were taught killing is good, you'd feel no remorse.
Need more explaination?
> ANYONE whose IQ even approaches, say, 90, can practice scientific principle
But how many actually do? It's a matter of choice, preference, abilities. And averages. So, some people of IQ of 85 become scientists. Some people of IQ 140 become lumberjacks. But it's the matter of proportions. I didn't say "all scientists"... I just took a stereotypical average scientist.
> I note that your description pretty much includes the whole set of conspiracy theorists.
Oh, but it does! Did I ever say they are all right? They come to odd conclusions and live up to them, they appear odd. Doesn't matter if the conclusions are true or false, only matters if they are odd.
> And guess what? I'm no slouch in the IQ dep't, but these guys were on the ball
See my other post in this story, "IQ is overrated". In other words, I agree. I'm not judging, I'm just describing. If your value system tells you you can't eat anything that isn't defined as 'kosher', I may think your value system is silly, but that doesn't mean it's good or bad. It's just very, very far from my own, and from things described in my system as "reasonable".
> "because it happens so, that there's if any then negative correlation between IQ and popularity...".
Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, and punctation wasn't really emphacized during the classes. I doubt there is a correlation between IQ and popularity. If there is any, it's negative. That is: the more intelligent you are, the less popular you are. (opposite not necessarily true...)
Why "statistical samples"? No, they are just specimens. Living proof that high-IQ people can be worthless shit as well, meaning that if you have high IQ, it means very little about your value as a human being. There may be (and possibly is) some correlation between IQ and other traits of character considered "valuable", but it's not very strong, and still IQ taken just by itself is of quite a bit lower than generally "accepted" value. So:
No, high IQ doesn't make a difference. At best it indicates possiblity of existence of difference (which happens from other reasons).
From my experience I found that being active, charismatic, experienced is more profitable in achieving success (whatever it means) than being intelligent. Being intelligent helps, sure. But not all that much. And when it comes to "value", it increases the monetary value of human resource you are, it allows solving some less common problems (most common problems are solved using experience instead.) it gives you something to boast about. Not much more profit from high IQ.
And as to the girl, one thing, I didn't find any "normal IQ" girl I'd really like yet. Always some other traits get in the way. And while some believe in "two heads are better than one" and would prefer to find a person to match them in as many traits as possible, as similar to them as they can - resulting in even higher efficiency of solving problems they are good at, but still living with the same old weaknesses, I prefer versatility, fulfilling each other - let her be good in all the things I'm poor at, and me being able to supply whatever she can't. This way together we can solve much wider range of problems to a satisfactory level. I have IQ high enough to do the puzzle solving for both of us. She has all the social skills I'd ever need. Etc.
Why are scientists seen as so "different"? Or maybe... they are?
Well, most scientists are pretty intelligent people. And this applies to all the "genius level" people. High IQ is resulting in ability to analyse -everything- at higher ease than most can. Generally used in their domain, but they also think about the world as a whole, society, life, the universe, God, all that important stuff. And instead of swallowing what the "authorities" say and accepting it ("they said that on TV so it must be true" or at best "they said that on TV and I'm not smart enough to verify if it's true or not, but TV usually tells the truth, so it's likely true"), they analyse it (because they can) and come to their own conclusions, sometimes far different from what's announced by celebrities (because it happens so, that there's if any then negative correlation between IQ and popularity...) and because of living up to -their own- views on the world instead of following the crowd, they are different, living different lives.
Women? That's matter of procreation, physical stimulation of organs and triggering instinctive response that causes release of hormones responsible for the feeling of pleasure. Money? That's a way to obtain resources/items, may be helpful in making life more comfortable but only up to certain amount, besides they are only a medium to obtain things/services, they are useless themselves so hoarding them is pointless. And so on and so on... Joe Sixpack just can't understand that.
First there's the requirement to define normal. Measuring IQ, not a straightforward task, places highly intelligent people out on the tail of a bell curve, but many highly intelligent people are emotionally stable and vibrant.
Yes, but that's just a different bell curve. Different standard deviation, but still a bell curve twisted one or other way. So there IS correlation.
Changes in brain that allow for a genius aren't necessarily implying changes relating to "madness". But they imply -generally- a high probability significant deviation of the brain structure from the "norm" (defined as "median"). So the chance given person is "different" is proportionally higher, the further we get from the center of IQ curve. Never reaching certainity, nor even significantly approaching it, so there's still a good chance a person with IQ of 200 is completely sane and normal, but taken 100 "joe averages" and 100 guys with IQ higher than 150, you'll likely find one or two "freaks" amongst these "joes" and good 15-20 amongst the "smart guys".
And of course matter of choice of careers and built-in forcing of correlation: a job that really sucks for everyone but a few - a mathematician, a theorical physicist, a psychiatry doctor... you need special psychological traits closely related to insanity to pick one of these as your preferred career. But to succeed and actually get there you need high IQ. Therefore you see many mathematicians are crazy and most have high IQ: Conclusion: High IQ causes insanity. Wrong. Insanity combined with high IQ causes mathematicians.
Scientists less so - but I have never met a single mathematician (myself included) that wasn't slightly broken in the sanity department.
Oh, but it's not the matter of IQ, it's a matter of choice.
Of course the prerequisite to become a mathematician is high IQ. So there's lots of wackos who want to become mathematicians, but only the intelligent ones can become one.
Moreover, IQ is overrated.
I know one "smart guy". IQ probably about 150 or more. Chess master. Knows lots of books etc etc etc. Total asshole. He can't take a defeat. He has an ego complex, his nose-in-the-sky attitude repels everyone. Most people hate or despise him, deservedly. It isn't "meek, shy" kind of lack of social skills. It's "arrogant bastard" kind of lack of social skills.
Another guy, high IQ. Cheater, thief, scoundrel of the worst kind. Stay away, don't do business with him. He got a key role in students' council, doing the organizational work quite efficiently but somehow the finances of the council were always empty. With lots of effort (and not by proving anything - impossible, just by any other legal right) we got rid of him. A small group of smart, though not nearly as smart group of students took his work. Suddenly it appeared that (with lots of effort, but...) they can manage things just as efficiently and the council can afford a xerox machine, a new computer, reduce the disco tickets price by 70% and so on. So much for high IQ.
And as for low IQ? Well, I had a girlfriend. (Really!) And honestly, she was dumb. All the way. But she was honest, she knew how to give warmth, compassion, love, lots of the really good stuff. She didn't need high IQ to feel what you felt - good empathy sense, really nice set of social skills, and still just enough of brains to make an interesting casual conversation (plus confronting the "knowledge" with the "feeling" view of things gives you quite a bit of new insight... quite useful for a nerd!)
duck?
*ducks*
As soon as this gets popular, more kids will start commiting crimes on regular basis, just to be allowed to participate in the tournament :)