Acting like that is just childish. If Darwin was right, then you have nothing to lose by carefully writing a counter paper, countering the evidence.
Except time, of course. If you spent time carefully dealing with all half-baked claims that pop up (many of which make the same errors) you'll waste all your time. Rejecting a claim that's too similar to a previously refuted claim is a way to save time.
He interviews scientists and editors who have lost their jobs for printing/writing papers that claim our DNA has a 'code' with information that could not have happened in nature.
Careful with that. Being fired for publishing an article does not necessarily relate to the conclusion of the article. Consider the recent Gerstmann issue in videogame journalism: A reviewer was fired after giving a very negative review to a game that was featured heavily in ads on the site. Sounds clear-cut at first? Now watch the review, it's crap. Really unconvincing, not up to professional standard and people who know the game said he never played it past the first level. Previous work of his has been similarily sloppy. Sounds to me like he was fired for failing at his job, not for annoying the advertisers.
People writing or approving a paper making claims like "this code cannot be natural" might have shown grave errors in their methodology or judgement. Perhaps these were just flimsy excuses like those commonly cited by creationists? Perhaps they were so bad that noone worth his salt would consider them correct so anyone who does would not be worth his salt and should be fired?
I'm saying you can spin a lot of bullshit out of facts by hiding other important information. I doubt you can make a movie that would conclusively show that the firings were caused by disagreement over the conclusion without making it require so much background knowledge that mere mortals cannot watch it.
Claims that there are conspiracies hiding the truth seems to happen pretty often lately when debating subjects that are contested in the US...
This is about the practicality in real life combat, a 7m tall machine with paper thin armor will get torn apart by any vehicle mounted weapon. A gunship (say, an Apache) would turn a squad of these into scrap metal in no time just by using the AT machine gun. Even 100t mechs would be highly vulnerable to ATGMs due to the large area they'd have to cover with armor.
Your mech would be highly visible from the air and ground, even just a simple RPG launcher would be enough to destroy it so you'd have a huge disadvantage, you cannot see infantry easily but infantry can see and shoot you. Finding a 3m cover to hide your mech behind isn't easy outside of urban combat either and in urban combat you're again just RPG bait.
And hell, when you're fighting an MBT, what are you going to do? Jumpjets? You'll get blown to bits at the apex of the jump. Go into cover and pop out occassionally? Your light armor would allow the use of suppressive fire against you and make you an easy target for artillery while hiding in cover, go out and you'll get shot.
You won't get much powerful weaponry on that mech either, the bigger the gun the more recoil you get and a biped won't be able to take much of that.
Of course since this involves geeks I have to point out that all of these are most likely simple substitution ciphers for characters or entire words, cracking those won't even be enough to deal with the ENIGMA system, never mind modern ciphers.
A 15-30 ton, 10m mech would be shredded by fairly light weapons. A main battle tank weights 60 tons and can barely withstand a tank shot despite having a much lower profile (critical to avoid hits and use cover) and a much smaller area facing the enemy so less armor needed for a given thickness. Imagine how much armor you could fit onto a mech of that size without going over 15-30 tons. You'd probably hit that limit with just the motor system and weapon loadout.
That sounds like Microsoft error handling is an ISO standard now, too!
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard
on
ISO Releases OOXML FAQ
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
OOXML isn't much of a de-facto standard,.doc is and OOXML is not.doc. OOXML is more like docx which isn't used much as nothing but Office 2007 can open it OOTB. Almost noone has Office 2007 and the people who do will use.doc files so other people can use them.
It's been pointed out quite often that OOXML does not match docx exactly and that the specification is incomplete so it will not allow you to open Office 2007 files without further reverse engineering.
But in an MMO the bot can play when your not online, even if its not as effective as a player its far more effective than not playing at all.
AFAIK Eve has pretty harsh death penalties (you lose the ship permanently) so if anyone found a weakness in your AI you'll lose more than you gain.
Imagine an RTS where you and I are playing against each other "1 on 1" but there is actually a 3rd starting point with an AI run opponent that happens to be allied to you. That can't do anything but give you a huge edge.
That analogy has the AI in possession of its own resources though. The AI would give you an advantage by fielding troops of its own. When you share the same resources the AI can actually hinder you.
If something as simple as going to a rock extracting ore and returning it to base can be automated, you can go to sleep and wake up millions richer. Surely that's going to have an effect to your overall success.
Not if everyone can do it, even less if everyone can just intercept your mining ship.
Even just automating locking on target, firng weapons, setting optimum distance, and monitoring shield levels could be automated it make a difference.
Sounds like an argument for opening this up, if everyone has automated helpers in his ship then noone gets an advantage. Hell, you could even make a metagame out of developing "computer software" by having players create bot scripts and selling them for ingame money.
If something as simple as following you around, and attacking your target and healing you when you are wounded can be automated you'll be more than a match for any other 'solo' player of similiar 'level' that you encounter. If that other player is two-boxing, you'll still have the edge, because your bot is handling itself semi-competently allowing you to focus 100% on your primary, while your opponent has to either neglect his 2nd box or divide his time. Both of which will cost.
Yeah but that requires two "players" which will always give you an edge over a single player. But why not get a friend to man that second ship? It's a multiplayer game after all.
and hey maybe I don't even need 25 accounts... maybe I just need to belong to a corp with 25 members and some trust... and now we're mining 24x7 whether we're on or not, when we're ready to play or mining fleet bot logs off and we log on. When we leave for work/school/sleep/food, we rejoin the bot mining fleet...
Wouldn't be much different from each individual having his own bot.
I think this could be compared to the X series of games. In those you can buy any number of ships and any you don't pilot can be run by bots. Those bots don't come for free though, buying bot software with better patterns and more commands costs money (in this case you'd obviously make that apply to ships the player isn't officially using so an ingame bot fleet would not cost subscription fees for every ship). Not sure Eve would want to turn into that but it'd definitely be cool.
"on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'"...how utterly appropriate...
If the "given on a take-it-or-leave-it basis" thing on Wikipedia is the definition then an EULA is definitely a contract of adhesion (you cannot negotiate its terms after all) and the "reasonable expectations" thing comes into play. I don't know what the Mac OS X box says but I'd call a "computer must be made by brand X" clause pretty damn uncommon and not reasonably expectable. In fact I think that sounds like an antitrust issue but I guess without a much bigger market share antitrust won't do anything to Apple yet.
Of course Wikipedia isn't exactly a good source for accurate definitions.
Meh. I'm a contributor to Spring, an (opensource) online RTS where we allow anyone to run custom Lua code and automate what they want to. It hasn't led to cheating, at least nothing I'd count as cheating (there's often heated debates over whether automating "menial" tasks is cheating but I think it's not, if you don't want e.g. dgunning planes then tell the engine, don't hope that the player is too incompetent to enter it!). A script can only automate trivial things, it cannot do the thinking for you. I don't know much about Eve but since it's an MMO I expect it to have little twitch gaming. In such a situation automating tasks will only give you a small boost as the most important actions are those the computer cannot do for you. Since it's a server-client model information cheating shouldn't be an issue either, just don't tell the client what the player must not know.
The FBI is a bit different from a normal company though, they can get the logs that tell them which IP belongs to whom. Getting a warrant shouldn't be hard if you can show that the IP accessed child porn (though I guess it's not even necessary anymore).
Your definition of fate is problematic in that it doesn't match determinism, by introducing new knowledge, actions or decisions to the initial state of the system you change the outcome, however that change remains deterministic. With these definitions we could conclude that free will exists and is perfectly deterministic which would be silly by most people's understanding of free will.
But OOXML isn't the doc format everyone uses, it's the docx format a few people use unwittingly and are then confused about because noone else can open it and Windows conveniently hides the extension in the default settings.
I think the logic for a separate TV tax was to make the BBC independent of the govt's budget planning so the govt cannot threaten to slash the BBC's funding for dissenting oppinions.
It's more a case of overpromising, the ISPs looked at their bandwidth, estimated an average load for the users and thus calculated how many users they could support on an average load (or how high they could set the peak speed for x users). The average load was calculated for normal browsing and maybe some gaming activity but now more and more applications can use the peak bandwidth at all times so the average is rising and the ISPs are screwed since they already promised everyone the peak bandwidths and many don't have limits on how long that peak may be sustained. Even those who do suddently find customers demanding more volume because the amount of data transferred in everyday use went up a lot and what was enough in the past no longer is.
turning on the box literally causes your brain to rot
I've never heard of brainrot caused by the quality of the information you consume. In fact I've never heard of brains just starting to rot in healthy individuals (and I don't think any of the brain diseases I've heard about qualify as rot).
(AKA don't use "literally" when you mean "figuratively" or just an expletive for emphasis)
Asimov already had a variant of that using the first law, simply define anything that's not your own nationality as a non-human and tell the system to destroy anything that looks human but isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Acting like that is just childish. If Darwin was right, then you have nothing to lose by carefully writing a counter paper, countering the evidence.
Except time, of course. If you spent time carefully dealing with all half-baked claims that pop up (many of which make the same errors) you'll waste all your time. Rejecting a claim that's too similar to a previously refuted claim is a way to save time.
He interviews scientists and editors who have lost their jobs for printing/writing papers that claim our DNA has a 'code' with information that could not have happened in nature.
Careful with that. Being fired for publishing an article does not necessarily relate to the conclusion of the article. Consider the recent Gerstmann issue in videogame journalism: A reviewer was fired after giving a very negative review to a game that was featured heavily in ads on the site. Sounds clear-cut at first? Now watch the review, it's crap. Really unconvincing, not up to professional standard and people who know the game said he never played it past the first level. Previous work of his has been similarily sloppy. Sounds to me like he was fired for failing at his job, not for annoying the advertisers.
People writing or approving a paper making claims like "this code cannot be natural" might have shown grave errors in their methodology or judgement. Perhaps these were just flimsy excuses like those commonly cited by creationists? Perhaps they were so bad that noone worth his salt would consider them correct so anyone who does would not be worth his salt and should be fired?
I'm saying you can spin a lot of bullshit out of facts by hiding other important information. I doubt you can make a movie that would conclusively show that the firings were caused by disagreement over the conclusion without making it require so much background knowledge that mere mortals cannot watch it.
Claims that there are conspiracies hiding the truth seems to happen pretty often lately when debating subjects that are contested in the US...
This is about the practicality in real life combat, a 7m tall machine with paper thin armor will get torn apart by any vehicle mounted weapon. A gunship (say, an Apache) would turn a squad of these into scrap metal in no time just by using the AT machine gun. Even 100t mechs would be highly vulnerable to ATGMs due to the large area they'd have to cover with armor.
Your mech would be highly visible from the air and ground, even just a simple RPG launcher would be enough to destroy it so you'd have a huge disadvantage, you cannot see infantry easily but infantry can see and shoot you. Finding a 3m cover to hide your mech behind isn't easy outside of urban combat either and in urban combat you're again just RPG bait.
And hell, when you're fighting an MBT, what are you going to do? Jumpjets? You'll get blown to bits at the apex of the jump. Go into cover and pop out occassionally? Your light armor would allow the use of suppressive fire against you and make you an easy target for artillery while hiding in cover, go out and you'll get shot.
You won't get much powerful weaponry on that mech either, the bigger the gun the more recoil you get and a biped won't be able to take much of that.
Of course since this involves geeks I have to point out that all of these are most likely simple substitution ciphers for characters or entire words, cracking those won't even be enough to deal with the ENIGMA system, never mind modern ciphers.
A 15-30 ton, 10m mech would be shredded by fairly light weapons. A main battle tank weights 60 tons and can barely withstand a tank shot despite having a much lower profile (critical to avoid hits and use cover) and a much smaller area facing the enemy so less armor needed for a given thickness. Imagine how much armor you could fit onto a mech of that size without going over 15-30 tons. You'd probably hit that limit with just the motor system and weapon loadout.
That sounds like Microsoft error handling is an ISO standard now, too!
OOXML isn't much of a de-facto standard, .doc is and OOXML is not .doc. OOXML is more like docx which isn't used much as nothing but Office 2007 can open it OOTB. Almost noone has Office 2007 and the people who do will use .doc files so other people can use them.
It's been pointed out quite often that OOXML does not match docx exactly and that the specification is incomplete so it will not allow you to open Office 2007 files without further reverse engineering.
I would assume you pay to the state you listed as the billing address.
Awww, I was expecting an Ayn Rand quote in your post.
That's a tabloid you're linking to, BTW.
I haven't seen Mr. Willis lately but I don't think he's fat enough to stop an asteroid even if you strap him on a rocket.
But in an MMO the bot can play when your not online, even if its not as effective as a player its far more effective than not playing at all.
AFAIK Eve has pretty harsh death penalties (you lose the ship permanently) so if anyone found a weakness in your AI you'll lose more than you gain.
Imagine an RTS where you and I are playing against each other "1 on 1" but there is actually a 3rd starting point with an AI run opponent that happens to be allied to you. That can't do anything but give you a huge edge.
That analogy has the AI in possession of its own resources though. The AI would give you an advantage by fielding troops of its own. When you share the same resources the AI can actually hinder you.
If something as simple as going to a rock extracting ore and returning it to base can be automated, you can go to sleep and wake up millions richer. Surely that's going to have an effect to your overall success.
Not if everyone can do it, even less if everyone can just intercept your mining ship.
Even just automating locking on target, firng weapons, setting optimum distance, and monitoring shield levels could be automated it make a difference.
Sounds like an argument for opening this up, if everyone has automated helpers in his ship then noone gets an advantage. Hell, you could even make a metagame out of developing "computer software" by having players create bot scripts and selling them for ingame money.
If something as simple as following you around, and attacking your target and healing you when you are wounded can be automated you'll be more than a match for any other 'solo' player of similiar 'level' that you encounter. If that other player is two-boxing, you'll still have the edge, because your bot is handling itself semi-competently allowing you to focus 100% on your primary, while your opponent has to either neglect his 2nd box or divide his time. Both of which will cost.
Yeah but that requires two "players" which will always give you an edge over a single player. But why not get a friend to man that second ship? It's a multiplayer game after all.
and hey maybe I don't even need 25 accounts... maybe I just need to belong to a corp with 25 members and some trust... and now we're mining 24x7 whether we're on or not, when we're ready to play or mining fleet bot logs off and we log on. When we leave for work/school/sleep/food, we rejoin the bot mining fleet...
Wouldn't be much different from each individual having his own bot.
I think this could be compared to the X series of games. In those you can buy any number of ships and any you don't pilot can be run by bots. Those bots don't come for free though, buying bot software with better patterns and more commands costs money (in this case you'd obviously make that apply to ships the player isn't officially using so an ingame bot fleet would not cost subscription fees for every ship). Not sure Eve would want to turn into that but it'd definitely be cool.
"on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'" ...how utterly appropriate...
If the "given on a take-it-or-leave-it basis" thing on Wikipedia is the definition then an EULA is definitely a contract of adhesion (you cannot negotiate its terms after all) and the "reasonable expectations" thing comes into play. I don't know what the Mac OS X box says but I'd call a "computer must be made by brand X" clause pretty damn uncommon and not reasonably expectable. In fact I think that sounds like an antitrust issue but I guess without a much bigger market share antitrust won't do anything to Apple yet.
Of course Wikipedia isn't exactly a good source for accurate definitions.
Meh. I'm a contributor to Spring, an (opensource) online RTS where we allow anyone to run custom Lua code and automate what they want to. It hasn't led to cheating, at least nothing I'd count as cheating (there's often heated debates over whether automating "menial" tasks is cheating but I think it's not, if you don't want e.g. dgunning planes then tell the engine, don't hope that the player is too incompetent to enter it!). A script can only automate trivial things, it cannot do the thinking for you. I don't know much about Eve but since it's an MMO I expect it to have little twitch gaming. In such a situation automating tasks will only give you a small boost as the most important actions are those the computer cannot do for you. Since it's a server-client model information cheating shouldn't be an issue either, just don't tell the client what the player must not know.
Or just spoof the IP long enough for CCCP to take notice?
Depends, reason-free termination when the other party has fulfilled its obligations (iin this case, paid) is invalid in some jurisdictions.
The FBI is a bit different from a normal company though, they can get the logs that tell them which IP belongs to whom. Getting a warrant shouldn't be hard if you can show that the IP accessed child porn (though I guess it's not even necessary anymore).
Your definition of fate is problematic in that it doesn't match determinism, by introducing new knowledge, actions or decisions to the initial state of the system you change the outcome, however that change remains deterministic. With these definitions we could conclude that free will exists and is perfectly deterministic which would be silly by most people's understanding of free will.
But OOXML isn't the doc format everyone uses, it's the docx format a few people use unwittingly and are then confused about because noone else can open it and Windows conveniently hides the extension in the default settings.
I think the logic for a separate TV tax was to make the BBC independent of the govt's budget planning so the govt cannot threaten to slash the BBC's funding for dissenting oppinions.
It's more a case of overpromising, the ISPs looked at their bandwidth, estimated an average load for the users and thus calculated how many users they could support on an average load (or how high they could set the peak speed for x users). The average load was calculated for normal browsing and maybe some gaming activity but now more and more applications can use the peak bandwidth at all times so the average is rising and the ISPs are screwed since they already promised everyone the peak bandwidths and many don't have limits on how long that peak may be sustained. Even those who do suddently find customers demanding more volume because the amount of data transferred in everyday use went up a lot and what was enough in the past no longer is.
turning on the box literally causes your brain to rot
I've never heard of brainrot caused by the quality of the information you consume. In fact I've never heard of brains just starting to rot in healthy individuals (and I don't think any of the brain diseases I've heard about qualify as rot).
(AKA don't use "literally" when you mean "figuratively" or just an expletive for emphasis)
It would recognize a human as defined in its programming. If the definition of a human doesn't meet the biological one the bot will happily kill.
Asimov already had a variant of that using the first law, simply define anything that's not your own nationality as a non-human and tell the system to destroy anything that looks human but isn't.