Firstly, the car isn't propelled by Mr Fusion. It's got to get to 88 Mph using plain gasoline, allegedly. Mr Fusion is for the time part of the car, not the go-fast part of the car. It replaces the need for the plutonium and gives the 1.21 "jigawatts".
Secondly, there were a LOT of duplicate Delorians in 1955. I think there were something like 4 of them. I don't think the one Marty used was the one from the future, but one of the others.
(Delorian #1 - the one that Marty took back to 1955, in the first movie. Delorian #2 - the one that old Biff took back to give the sports alminac to young Biff. Delorian #3 - the one Marty and Doc came back in. Delorian #4 - the one hidden in the cave behind the drive-in from the wild west to 1955. At one moment in the film, I realized all four of these were in the same time, in the same town, and they were really the same one jumping there many times. That was kind of odd to wrap my brain around.)
When I went to college, this wasn't an option. The rule was that anyone under a certain age must be living in the dorms until they had built up 60 credits (after sophomore year, typically). There were special exceptions for people who's family already lived nearby (and thus the student already lived in the city), and people who were married, but the typical 19-20 year old freshman or sophomore was required to live in the dorms. (And anyone living in the dorms was required to have a food plan, meaning the food service was not beholden to its customers - they HAD to pay for the service, like it or not. The quality of the food service is pretty much what you'd expect it to be under those circumstances.
The dorm won't let you have a company lay cable and knock holes in walls - so you can't get anything better than phone modem service from any provider other than whom the owner of the dorm sets up for you to use.
Man these people are daft. "It won't work with encrypted networks, but hey, just disallow those and you're set!" Well, ignoring the fact that it's propgandistic bullcrap to paint all users of encrypted systems as copyright infringers, there's the fact that you can still encrypt the content and then send it over a plain unencrypted system. And I suspect this thing doesn't really know how to parse through even such simple "encryptions" as pkzipping your mp3.
And I wouldn't want video object recognition systems like those on the mars landers to be doing their work on JPEG images for the same reason. Luckily, they aren't. Just like a lossy 3D image format wouldn't be the ONLY ONE IN EXISTENCE like your faulty implication keeps assuming.
While it's been ages since I used it (footnote) (and so this might not be true anymore), one problem I encountered with RIB files is that they didn't give you a way to define a camera and look-at point. You could define where the camera was, but to define where it was pointed you did a series of rotation transformations instead of just picking a "look here" point. Then what gets stored in the RIB file is typically just the resulting transformation matrix that comes from all those rotations applied on top of each other. What this means, for the sake of an editor program, is that the RIB file doesn't store the lookat-point, and thus the editor doesn't know what point to "swing" around when the user tries to rotate the camera, if the editor loads the scene from a RIB file. Thus there is some information lossage when using RIB to store your scene. RIB only cares about the information needed to display a scene, not the information needed to edit the scene.
(Footnote: My last project way back in college was to take a wireframe scene editor that the art department used for its first computer graphics class, and switch it from loading/saving in Pixar's old "go" format so that it would instead save in Pixars (then) new RIB format. Basically, the only hard part of this project was that I had to rewrite the parser to parse RIB files, and stuff them into data structures in the program that were more geared for "go" files - so it was more of a language parsing and data structure mapping project than a 3D project.)
Further footnote: The cool thing about this was that the original wireframe editor that I was fiddling with, that was written in SunView (a now defunct X toolkit from Sun), was written by none other than Brian Paul (yes, the Mesa guy), back when he was an undergrad at the same small university, and had graduated just before I'd entered into the CS program there. So I've seen some of his code he wrote before he became so well known, and I've actually edited it. (No, I'm not trying to name-drop. I am humbled by what that guy did when still an undergrad. It's pretty amazing that he taught himself all that stuff before it was common to find courses on it.)
Why would a lossy standard for 3D be so bad?? The popularity of JPEG and MP3 pretty much proves that there's a lot of situations in which having a reproduction that's merely "good enough" for human senses is worth it if it allows for tight compression. There's a reason people don't generally store photos using PNG or GIF, and people don't generally store their songs on their digital walkabout players using WAV or RAW files.
If the output is intended just for human consumption, and not for perfect record keeping, or for perfect image analysis, then a lossy format makes a lot of sense.
It's below the arctic circle. They do get sun all year. The hours of sunlight, even in winter, are enough to keep the battery going. (Hell, if they can run a mars rover on MARS sunlight, then a friggin' parking meter on Montreal sunlight should work fine.)
Somebody comments that Linux does not suit their needs because it has bad sound card support, and your response is "You don't need sound."
False. Somebody commented that Linux has an achilles heel because it doesn't work with their sound card. That is saying signifigantly more than just "it doesn't suit my needs".
You *are* aware you just repeated what I said, right?
No, becasue I didn't repeat what you said. Perhaps I repeated what you were THINKING but never really said, but I didn't repeat what you said. What you originally said didn't specify what your restatement of it this time specified.
From the point of view of the people making Windows, the hardware vendor supplies the drivers. Inside that 'black box' it might be that the hardware vendor outsources this task to a third party, or not, but either way it's still the hardware vendor's responsibility to make it work. If they don't do it (or hire an outsourced firm to do it), Microsoft won't do it for them. This is why it is ignorant to praise Microsoft for allegedly having better technology with device drivers than Linux - THEY aren't the ones doing the work.
At first I was going to comment on how much silly overkill this is for simply paying for parking, but then I got to thinking - if the information is collected and transmitted up-to-date to a central location, then that means they could create a web service that will show you on a map which parking spaces are full Right Now. That could be really useful. "Honey, we're about to drive downtown to go do foo, could you check online and see how far away we're going to have to park? If the spots are filling up already we'd better get going now..." (Now, if you have an onboard computer with web connectivity in your car....)
Montreal gets plenty of sun. Sure, in the winter the days are really short, but in the summer they're really long. Overall the amount of total time spent in sunlight year-round won't be that much different than for somwhere nearer the equator. It's just that near the equator it will be more uniform throughout the year. (And look at Europe on a map - Most of Europe is fairly far north, on par with most Canadian cities, and thus gets about the same sunlight, and they have plenty of solar powered stuff.)
Winders does devices well because that's where the market's been. Linux would smoke Winders boxes in all tests if it had better drivers.
You have the cause and effect backward. Windows has drivers because it's popular. Popularity came first, vendors bending over backward to help Windows work with their products came as a result. The technical framework for third-party drivers is there for Linux. But it's not being used by most vendors.
You *are* aware that Microsoft doesn't write the drivers for most devices that work with Windows, right? It's the hardware manufacturer that makes the devcice that does that work.
IQ tests adjust for age, but IQ tests don't test intelligence. They test knowlege. They don't *try* to do so, but they end up doing so.
No, intelligence does not get better with age. It gets better with *time spent* on thinking. It's just that babies haven't had as much time spent on it yet because, well, they're babies.
The problem with trying to test someone's ability to learn new information is that any test will necessarily have to be on "old" information to somebody, somewhere, even if just the to the person who made up the test. This leads to the problem of how to test someone who is knowlegable. How can you tell for sure that the questions you are trying to make the person answer truly are novel to that person? The fact that you have to communicate the question in the form of a pencil and paper test severely limits the types of question you can ask, and thus you can't filter out the fact that some people have more knowlege of that style of question (people who do brain teasers, crossword puzzles, and so on). Yes, that activity probably does increase their intelligence as well as their knowlege, but how do you test for JUST the intelligence and not the knowlege, when knowlege of past types of similar questions is going to be a hard factor to make irrelevant?
By the way, the difference between a schitzophrenic neologism and a useful one is that a useful one is used by more than one person. There's nothing schitzophrenic about lingo and jargon.
"More unique" makes as much sense as "More biggest" or "More tallest". "More different" makes sense because it is analogous to "more big (bigger)", or "more tall (taller)". "Unique" already has a notion of singularity embedded into the word to begin with, just like "tallest" and "biggest" do. Other words you used in your alleged analogy do not, which is why your analogy is not an analogy.
Neenah, Wisconsin. At least, according to the logo on all the manhole covers, street drain covers, and other metal street fixtures I've seen in the area. Definately not an outsourced job (The thing about manhole covers is - the're really heavy. Therefore distance to ship them is a large part of the cost.)
On the subject of neologisms, I would actually prefer it if scientists made up new terms for things that don't fit any previous definitions of words. When they assign a new idea to a word with a previously established meaning, this leads to false equivocation fallacies down the road. Those fallacies are not necessarily used by the scientists themselves, but often are used by their detractors. Why bother setting yourself up for that sort of thing when a simpler, more clear solution exists? Just make a new word if it's an idea that the current vocabulary just doesn't seem to express properly.
One might argue that that creates extra work by forcing the scientist to spend time defining new words for the reader to follow, but that's no different than what goes on now when existing terms have to be redefined for the context of the science - but it does it without the baggage of previously established meanings, and thus it actually makes the task faster. (all you have to do is teach what the new word means, instead of teaching what a new meaning for an old word is, and then having to waste time fending off the people who keep wanting to use the word in the old way.)
On another topic, as far as your question on whether intelligence is malleable, I say absolutely. There's obvious proof all around us. Look at a 1 year old baby. Then look at an adult. Which one is moe intelligent? The adult. Therefore intelligence has to be a property that can get better in an individual. Look at the intelligence of a person who's sober. Compare to a person who's drunk. The drunk person acts less intelligently. Therefore intelligence can also get worse in an individual. Yes, intelligence is malleable. And, it does grow with excercise, just like strength of muscle does. If intelligence is based on physical pathways in the brain at some deep level, then activities that help establish those pathways and 'refresh' them so they don't fade are obviously going to help intelligence.
Yes, there's defininately a biological predisposition in individuals that make the playing field uneven - some pick up intelligence better than others, but the end result of a person's intelligence is a combination of that predisposition and the mental excercise the mind has undergone. This is just like the way some people start off crippled and others start off healthy and strong, but in the case of two people who started off the same, the one who excercises will get stronger than the one who doesn't.
If the resources can't support the people, then there shouldn't be that many people there. That may sound insensitive, but it's true. High birth rates, or high immigration rates, are a bad idea when the resources available are already overstretched. This extends to so called 'first world' countries too. The Los Angeles area shouldn't be as populous as it is. The resources can't take it. A sprawling city of 5 million shouldn't be built on a desert where they have to pump water in from three hundred miles away to keep it going, and the vegitation is spindly enough that hills keep eroding away under people's houses. L.A. is one broken water pipeline away from utter anarchy.
Ones that were just as good was what the rest of the world had at the time. The relative gap in tech level is what keeps some countries poorer than others, not the absolute value of their tech level.
I agree that if the utterance has understandable meaning then it can be legitimate. I disagree that this example of "somewhat unique" that the two of you are talking about has understandable meaning, however.
Using a term that only applies to continuous phenomena on a property that is boolean is not "creative" use of language. It's "destructive" use of language - wrecking the ability of people to say what they mean in short phrases. It's because of practices like that that nowadays lawyers have to write entire paragraphs to express a simple clear concept - lazy users of the language have ruined its ability to express things concisely and unambiguously. You can't be "somewhat unique", just like you can't be "somewhat pregnant".
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, the car isn't propelled by Mr Fusion. It's got to get to 88 Mph using plain gasoline, allegedly. Mr Fusion is for the time part of the car, not the go-fast part of the car. It replaces the need for the plutonium and gives the 1.21 "jigawatts".
Secondly, there were a LOT of duplicate Delorians in 1955. I think there were something like 4 of them. I don't think the one Marty used was the one from the future, but one of the others.
(Delorian #1 - the one that Marty took back to 1955, in the first movie. Delorian #2 - the one that old Biff took back to give the sports alminac to young Biff. Delorian #3 - the one Marty and Doc came back in. Delorian #4 - the one hidden in the cave behind the drive-in from the wild west to 1955. At one moment in the film, I realized all four of these were in the same time, in the same town, and they were really the same one jumping there many times. That was kind of odd to wrap my brain around.)
When I went to college, this wasn't an option. The rule was that anyone under a certain age must be living in the dorms until they had built up 60 credits (after sophomore year, typically). There were special exceptions for people who's family already lived nearby (and thus the student already lived in the city), and people who were married, but the typical 19-20 year old freshman or sophomore was required to live in the dorms. (And anyone living in the dorms was required to have a food plan, meaning the food service was not beholden to its customers - they HAD to pay for the service, like it or not. The quality of the food service is pretty much what you'd expect it to be under those circumstances.
The dorm won't let you have a company lay cable and knock holes in walls - so you can't get anything better than phone modem service from any provider other than whom the owner of the dorm sets up for you to use.
Man these people are daft. "It won't work with encrypted networks, but hey, just disallow those and you're set!" Well, ignoring the fact that it's propgandistic bullcrap to paint all users of encrypted systems as copyright infringers, there's the fact that you can still encrypt the content and then send it over a plain unencrypted system. And I suspect this thing doesn't really know how to parse through even such simple "encryptions" as pkzipping your mp3.
And I wouldn't want video object recognition systems like those on the mars landers to be doing their work on JPEG images for the same reason. Luckily, they aren't. Just like a lossy 3D image format wouldn't be the ONLY ONE IN EXISTENCE like your faulty implication keeps assuming.
It reads the same way it did the first time. "Windows does devices well" is backwards. It should be "Devices do Windows well".
While it's been ages since I used it (footnote) (and so this might not be true anymore), one problem I encountered with RIB files is that they didn't give you a way to define a camera and look-at point. You could define where the camera was, but to define where it was pointed you did a series of rotation transformations instead of just picking a "look here" point. Then what gets stored in the RIB file is typically just the resulting transformation matrix that comes from all those rotations applied on top of each other. What this means, for the sake of an editor program, is that the RIB file doesn't store the lookat-point, and thus the editor doesn't know what point to "swing" around when the user tries to rotate the camera, if the editor loads the scene from a RIB file. Thus there is some information lossage when using RIB to store your scene. RIB only cares about the information needed to display a scene, not the information needed to edit the scene.
(Footnote: My last project way back in college was to take a wireframe scene editor that the art department used for its first computer graphics class, and switch it from loading/saving in Pixar's old "go" format so that it would instead save in Pixars (then) new RIB format. Basically, the only hard part of this project was that I had to rewrite the parser to parse RIB files, and stuff them into data structures in the program that were more geared for "go" files - so it was more of a language parsing and data structure mapping project than a 3D project.)
Further footnote: The cool thing about this was that the original wireframe editor that I was fiddling with, that was written in SunView (a now defunct X toolkit from Sun), was written by none other than Brian Paul (yes, the Mesa guy), back when he was an undergrad at the same small university, and had graduated just before I'd entered into the CS program there. So I've seen some of his code he wrote before he became so well known, and I've actually edited it. (No, I'm not trying to name-drop. I am humbled by what that guy did when still an undergrad. It's pretty amazing that he taught himself all that stuff before it was common to find courses on it.)
Why would a lossy standard for 3D be so bad?? The popularity of JPEG and MP3 pretty much proves that there's a lot of situations in which having a reproduction that's merely "good enough" for human senses is worth it if it allows for tight compression. There's a reason people don't generally store photos using PNG or GIF, and people don't generally store their songs on their digital walkabout players using WAV or RAW files.
If the output is intended just for human consumption, and not for perfect record keeping, or for perfect image analysis, then a lossy format makes a lot of sense.
It's below the arctic circle. They do get sun all year. The hours of sunlight, even in winter, are enough to keep the battery going. (Hell, if they can run a mars rover on MARS sunlight, then a friggin' parking meter on Montreal sunlight should work fine.)
Somebody comments that Linux does not suit their needs because it has bad sound card support, and your response is "You don't need sound."
False. Somebody commented that Linux has an achilles heel because it doesn't work with their sound card. That is saying signifigantly more than just "it doesn't suit my needs".
You *are* aware you just repeated what I said, right?
No, becasue I didn't repeat what you said. Perhaps I repeated what you were THINKING but never really said, but I didn't repeat what you said. What you originally said didn't specify what your restatement of it this time specified.
From the point of view of the people making Windows, the hardware vendor supplies the drivers. Inside that 'black box' it might be that the hardware vendor outsources this task to a third party, or not, but either way it's still the hardware vendor's responsibility to make it work. If they don't do it (or hire an outsourced firm to do it), Microsoft won't do it for them. This is why it is ignorant to praise Microsoft for allegedly having better technology with device drivers than Linux - THEY aren't the ones doing the work.
At first I was going to comment on how much silly overkill this is for simply paying for parking, but then I got to thinking - if the information is collected and transmitted up-to-date to a central location, then that means they could create a web service that will show you on a map which parking spaces are full Right Now. That could be really useful. "Honey, we're about to drive downtown to go do foo, could you check online and see how far away we're going to have to park? If the spots are filling up already we'd better get going now..."
(Now, if you have an onboard computer with web connectivity in your car....)
Montreal gets plenty of sun. Sure, in the winter the days are really short, but in the summer they're really long. Overall the amount of total time spent in sunlight year-round won't be that much different than for somwhere nearer the equator. It's just that near the equator it will be more uniform throughout the year. (And look at Europe on a map - Most of Europe is fairly far north, on par with most Canadian cities, and thus gets about the same sunlight, and they have plenty of solar powered stuff.)
Point 1 - That was the British, opertaing with troops stationed remotely in what is TODAY called Canada. Canada wasn't even a country yet in 1812.
Point 2 - If you want to do it again, please do it when Shrub is home.
Winders does devices well because that's where the market's been. Linux would smoke Winders boxes in all tests if it had better drivers.
You have the cause and effect backward. Windows has drivers because it's popular. Popularity came first, vendors bending over backward to help Windows work with their products came as a result. The technical framework for third-party drivers is there for Linux. But it's not being used by most vendors.
You *are* aware that Microsoft doesn't write the drivers for most devices that work with Windows, right? It's the hardware manufacturer that makes the devcice that does that work.
IQ tests adjust for age, but IQ tests don't test intelligence. They test knowlege. They don't *try* to do so, but they end up doing so.
No, intelligence does not get better with age. It gets better with *time spent* on thinking. It's just that babies haven't had as much time spent on it yet because, well, they're babies.
The problem with trying to test someone's ability to learn new information is that any test will necessarily have to be on "old" information to somebody, somewhere, even if just the to the person who made up the test. This leads to the problem of how to test someone who is knowlegable. How can you tell for sure that the questions you are trying to make the person answer truly are novel to that person? The fact that you have to communicate the question in the form of a pencil and paper test severely limits the types of question you can ask, and thus you can't filter out the fact that some people have more knowlege of that style of question (people who do brain teasers, crossword puzzles, and so on). Yes, that activity probably does increase their intelligence as well as their knowlege, but how do you test for JUST the intelligence and not the knowlege, when knowlege of past types of similar questions is going to be a hard factor to make irrelevant?
By the way, the difference between a schitzophrenic neologism and a useful one is that a useful one is used by more than one person. There's nothing schitzophrenic about lingo and jargon.
"More unique" makes as much sense as "More biggest" or "More tallest". "More different" makes sense because it is analogous to "more big (bigger)", or "more tall (taller)". "Unique" already has a notion of singularity embedded into the word to begin with, just like "tallest" and "biggest" do. Other words you used in your alleged analogy do not, which is why your analogy is not an analogy.
Have you ever seen where manhole covers are made?
Neenah, Wisconsin. At least, according to the logo on all the manhole covers, street drain covers, and other metal street fixtures I've seen in the area.
Definately not an outsourced job (The thing about manhole covers is - the're really heavy. Therefore distance to ship them is a large part of the cost.)
On the subject of neologisms, I would actually prefer it if scientists made up new terms for things that don't fit any previous definitions of words. When they assign a new idea to a word with a previously established meaning, this leads to false equivocation fallacies down the road. Those fallacies are not necessarily used by the scientists themselves, but often are used by their detractors. Why bother setting yourself up for that sort of thing when a simpler, more clear solution exists? Just make a new word if it's an idea that the current vocabulary just doesn't seem to express properly.
One might argue that that creates extra work by forcing the scientist to spend time defining new words for the reader to follow, but that's no different than what goes on now when existing terms have to be redefined for the context of the science - but it does it without the baggage of previously established meanings, and thus it actually makes the task faster. (all you have to do is teach what the new word means, instead of teaching what a new meaning for an old word is, and then having to waste time fending off the people who keep wanting to use the word in the old way.)
On another topic, as far as your question on whether intelligence is malleable, I say absolutely. There's obvious proof all around us. Look at a 1 year old baby. Then look at an adult. Which one is moe intelligent? The adult. Therefore intelligence has to be a property that can get better in an individual. Look at the intelligence of a person who's sober. Compare to a person who's drunk. The drunk person acts less intelligently. Therefore intelligence can also get worse in an individual. Yes, intelligence is malleable. And, it does grow with excercise, just like strength of muscle does. If intelligence is based on physical pathways in the brain at some deep level, then activities that help establish those pathways and 'refresh' them so they don't fade are obviously going to help intelligence.
Yes, there's defininately a biological predisposition in individuals that make the playing field uneven - some pick up intelligence better than others, but the end result of a person's intelligence is a combination of that predisposition and the mental excercise the mind has undergone. This is just like the way some people start off crippled and others start off healthy and strong, but in the case of two people who started off the same, the one who excercises will get stronger than the one who doesn't.
IDE's don't help people program visually, despite the badly named MS Visual line of IDE's.
If the resources can't support the people, then there shouldn't be that many people there. That may sound insensitive, but it's true. High birth rates, or high immigration rates, are a bad idea when the resources available are already overstretched. This extends to so called 'first world' countries too. The Los Angeles area shouldn't be as populous as it is. The resources can't take it. A sprawling city of 5 million shouldn't be built on a desert where they have to pump water in from three hundred miles away to keep it going, and the vegitation is spindly enough that hills keep eroding away under people's houses. L.A. is one broken water pipeline away from utter anarchy.
OK, so what computers came over on the Mayflower?
Ones that were just as good was what the rest of the world had at the time. The relative gap in tech level is what keeps some countries poorer than others, not the absolute value of their tech level.
I agree that if the utterance has understandable meaning then it can be legitimate. I disagree that this example of "somewhat unique" that the two of you are talking about has understandable meaning, however.
Using a term that only applies to continuous phenomena on a property that is boolean is not "creative" use of language. It's "destructive" use of language - wrecking the ability of people to say what they mean in short phrases. It's because of practices like that that nowadays lawyers have to write entire paragraphs to express a simple clear concept - lazy users of the language have ruined its ability to express things concisely and unambiguously. You can't be "somewhat unique", just like you can't be "somewhat pregnant".