I would say that ratings are rather stricter in the US. I can't tell you how many times I've seen American commercials for a movie advertising it as "Rated R" when it's only rated AA (14+) in Canada. Though it depends largely on what kind of content is present, overall very few movies are rated 'R' in Canada.
Chekov never tested the Genesis device on Ceti Alpha 5. They discovered Kahn there, who then proceeded to use him to steal the Genesis device. It subsequently exploded in the Mutari Nebula, from which the Genesis planet formed.
You are right about one thing, though. Contamination of Mars with Terran bacteria is a very real problem.
Competition. You no longer have a 'monopoly' on your software: since it must be free for everyone to use, others can try to support it better than you. Which is good for the user.
I think that calling it 'chaos' is rather unspecific and unnecessary. Chaos is such a grand and suggestive word: from chaos we were created, and to chaos we will return... it has much religion connotation, and is even used (or alluded to) frequently in the Bible. But what does this statement really mean?
"Chaos is what drives the creative process." This seems to be true, but we need not use such grandiose terms. If we consider chaos to be simple earthly strife, such as the need for food or better tools or better profits, then this is a very true statement. It is true on a very real and palpable level: If we had no needs, why would we create?
No offense, but while chaos is a neat word and a neat idea, saying that creation stems from chaos is not particularly profound. It sounds profound, but it's really just a fancy way of saying something obvious.
That's certainly an interesting observation... but could non-functional art (such as a painting or sculpture) also be considered beautiful based on these parameters, on a more physical level? Does the efficiency of the construction of even a nonfunctional piece of work contribute to its beauty?
I see that you are suggesting a duplicity in the definition of beauty, yet it is apparent that they are tied together on a fundamental level. One definition is of a mathematical beauty, which values efficiency as an aesthetic. The other capitalizes on organic beauty, the result of human perception and evolved cognitive processes. However, these perceptions are the result of natural forces of evolution which itself values efficiency. Therefore, what is mathematically efficient is also humanly aesthetic: form and function are intimately related. This suggests that there does exist a universal, unified beauty which is present in design, be it functional or not.
Untrue. You still need to follow some rules, otherwise it'd be complete gibberish. Even if you look at the famous Jabberwocky, rules are followed. The words themselves may be nonsense, but:
They still conform to proper phonemic structure of English;
English grammar is upheld;
The English phonology and alphabet are used;
Rules of poetic structure are upheld (eg. rhyme, meter, etc.).
Poetry, or indeed any artistic expression, is all about intelligently manipulating a structured system in some creative way. Language is a supreme example of this, and programming can be as well. You cannot throw out every rule, as there would then be no context for understanding the art. Coding is more restrictive than spoken language, but that makes the art of coding all the more esoteric and challenging.
The engineering effort for something like this must be amazing. To launch this thing from Earth and have it eventually land on a moving comet... so much could go wrong.
But I hope for the best, and I hope that the scientists involved discover what they're looking for. Onward and upward, in the name of discovery. Missions like these are what will truly benefit our understanding, a little bit at a time.
That's like saying that knowledge of mathematics (the notation) is not a prerequisite for the understanding of mathematics (the theory). Here, they use the same word--"mathematics"--because the two, while not equal, are inseparably related.
This ultimately boils down to a linguistic argument, in my opinion. True, you can understand concepts without a language, but how do you express them? Learning to code--which is essentially learning how a given language can be manipulated by a programmer--is an essential part of computer science theory since it provides a framework on which these concepts can grow. Learning how computers and operating systems work is directly dependent on knowing how they are programmed and being able to program them.
This "CS without programming" makes about as much sense as calculus without derivatives. You might be able to understand the concepts, but you can't express them. At least, not easily.
Re:May have? May have?!?!
on
Brine on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
I wasn't aware that I was 'trumpeting' anything.
*sigh* The things Slashdot can do to a person... terrible.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's safe to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I would say that ratings are rather stricter in the US. I can't tell you how many times I've seen American commercials for a movie advertising it as "Rated R" when it's only rated AA (14+) in Canada. Though it depends largely on what kind of content is present, overall very few movies are rated 'R' in Canada.
It works fine in IE, and that's all that matters.
Gee, thanks for the tip! I would never have figured that out.
Not to mention that the whole discussion is about as ludicrous as arguing whether or not Picard takes sugar with his tea.
That's ridiculous! I think Carmack has more integrity than that.
...although I'd prefer Indiana Jones if I had a choice...
Three words: Temple of Doom.
Forrest Gump - Forrest is kind of a pseudo-geek himself.
If by geek you mean retard, I'd probably agree with you.
There's nothing geeky about Forrest Gump, save that he was picked on as a kid because he was too stupid to understand what was going on around him.
Other than that, great movie!
Hah.
Looks like someone else beat you to it.
Chekov never tested the Genesis device on Ceti Alpha 5. They discovered Kahn there, who then proceeded to use him to steal the Genesis device. It subsequently exploded in the Mutari Nebula, from which the Genesis planet formed.
You are right about one thing, though. Contamination of Mars with Terran bacteria is a very real problem.
Competition. You no longer have a 'monopoly' on your software: since it must be free for everyone to use, others can try to support it better than you. Which is good for the user.
Huh?
I somehow doubt that most people eating in restaurants are thinking, "I shouldn't've come here... I could've made this at home!"
I think that calling it 'chaos' is rather unspecific and unnecessary. Chaos is such a grand and suggestive word: from chaos we were created, and to chaos we will return... it has much religion connotation, and is even used (or alluded to) frequently in the Bible. But what does this statement really mean?
"Chaos is what drives the creative process." This seems to be true, but we need not use such grandiose terms. If we consider chaos to be simple earthly strife, such as the need for food or better tools or better profits, then this is a very true statement. It is true on a very real and palpable level: If we had no needs, why would we create?
No offense, but while chaos is a neat word and a neat idea, saying that creation stems from chaos is not particularly profound. It sounds profound, but it's really just a fancy way of saying something obvious.
That's certainly an interesting observation... but could non-functional art (such as a painting or sculpture) also be considered beautiful based on these parameters, on a more physical level? Does the efficiency of the construction of even a nonfunctional piece of work contribute to its beauty?
I see that you are suggesting a duplicity in the definition of beauty, yet it is apparent that they are tied together on a fundamental level. One definition is of a mathematical beauty, which values efficiency as an aesthetic. The other capitalizes on organic beauty, the result of human perception and evolved cognitive processes. However, these perceptions are the result of natural forces of evolution which itself values efficiency. Therefore, what is mathematically efficient is also humanly aesthetic: form and function are intimately related. This suggests that there does exist a universal, unified beauty which is present in design, be it functional or not.
This is why programmers can also be artists.
Ever read The Story of Mel?
Correction: Trust can be earned, or given freely.
Um, yeah.
Next.
I was feigning ignorance for the sake of humour, but good explanation otherwise.
Well, it looks like http://www.buslink.com/ is down. I wonder if Slashdot has anything to do with this?
:)
If so... good job guys.
At least the BBC had the decency to call them malicious hackers.
You mean there's another kind?
I don't understand you people, who feel guilty for doing what they like to do. What the hell?
...based on experience and intuition...
By which you mean 'guess.'
The engineering effort for something like this must be amazing. To launch this thing from Earth and have it eventually land on a moving comet... so much could go wrong.
But I hope for the best, and I hope that the scientists involved discover what they're looking for. Onward and upward, in the name of discovery. Missions like these are what will truly benefit our understanding, a little bit at a time.
That's like saying that knowledge of mathematics (the notation) is not a prerequisite for the understanding of mathematics (the theory). Here, they use the same word--"mathematics"--because the two, while not equal, are inseparably related.
This ultimately boils down to a linguistic argument, in my opinion. True, you can understand concepts without a language, but how do you express them? Learning to code--which is essentially learning how a given language can be manipulated by a programmer--is an essential part of computer science theory since it provides a framework on which these concepts can grow. Learning how computers and operating systems work is directly dependent on knowing how they are programmed and being able to program them.
This "CS without programming" makes about as much sense as calculus without derivatives. You might be able to understand the concepts, but you can't express them. At least, not easily.
I wasn't aware that I was 'trumpeting' anything.
*sigh*
The things Slashdot can do to a person... terrible.