No, it's the same scene. The tether isn't there in the youtube snippet because the androids and untied it and tossed it into space (the Doctor untied his side for mobility's sake), hence the need for him to use the cricket ball...
I remember that episode... He didn't bounce it off the ship. He threw it to Adric(?) -- standing on the ship -- who then threw it back to him.
I'm sad enough to have looked this up to see if my memory was correct. It was. And yet, strangely, I feel very little joy about correctly recalling a scene from a bad episode of Doctor Who from 1982 which I haven't actually sat down and watched in... oh... fifteen years or so.
So did an episode of Doctor Who. Only in that version, the Doctor is wearing just a spacesuit helmet without the rest of the suit. In addition, he gets stuck and ends up using a the momentum of throwing a cricket ball, bouncing it against an exterior wall of a spaceship and catching it to propel him in the direction he wanted to go. The physics are a little goofy, but it's probably the least goofy thing about that particular episode...
(The wikipedia page even has a screenshot of the dubious exercise.)
"There are often confrontations at border crossings with suspected illegal aliens or drug runners," Lieberman says. "You don't want to hurt or kill them, just take them into custody. With this," he smiles, "they don't need to know English to comply."
Er, so you've got a confrontation between a border agent and an illegal alien. Neither one can understand the language of the other. One of them suddenly feeling violently ill improves the situation... how?
In my experience, there is only one kind of person who... oh... isn't sure if they're legally drunk or not.
They're drunk.
And, I'm sorry, the two cases you make:
> People that are full of shit and don't want to admit an unpleasant truth.
The unpleasant truth is... they're drunk. And should not be driving that night.
> People that are reasonably scrupulous but, for one reason or another,
> don't have the objective judgement or experience to tell. I've never
> had a drink before driving before and I don't know how it will affect me.
They're drunk and should not be driving that night. And if they're genuinely unaware that they are drunk, then I feel sorry for them... but that doesn't stop them being drunk.
Look, my only point is that if you have to sit there and think. And sit there and hmm and haw about whether you're sober or not, and think about how much food you've had to balance out the booze, and think about how much time has passed, and how much booze you've consumed in a certain time frame...
...then stop. Just think about how much easier it would be to call a friend. Call a cab. Just... don't... drive.
Just spend the mental cycles you were going to spend on figuring out your sobriety on something more geeky instead and just take a cab.
I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of attacks from angry Microsoft worshipers
I'm just wondering... Are there a lot of Microsoft worshipers out there? I mean, I know people who use MS because they are forced to. I know people who use MS because they aren't tech-savvy and don't know any other way. But I can't -- off the top of my head -- think of ever meeting anyone who defended MS to the death because of the way they implemented something...
The closest I think I've come to a pro-MS person was dealing with pro-PC people who really weren't pro-MS but were just sick to death of pro-Mac people.;>
(In fact, in conversations with my non-tech friends/family, whenever they complain about computers it is almost always the case that they complain about some oddity in a MS product. Usually it's a variation on: "I was using MS Word and it suddenly decided to change my layout without asking me!" )
Okay, first of all, I am strongly against drunk driving. To the people commenting on how they would like a system to tell them when they are drunk because they don't always know whether they are over the limit, I have but one thing to say. If you honestly don't know whether you're over the limit... you're over the limit.
Okay, so it detects that the driver is drunk. And the decision the car makes is to turn off access to the shift? Does it worry anyone out there that the car can override the driver? I mean, yes, if the driver is drunk, then probably the hunk of metal is better equipped to make decisions. But the first time this thing misfires there will be hell to pay.
And what happens if the drunk driver decides to drive around in first gear anyway? Will the steering automatically head towards the nearest embankment in an attempt to save time?
Also:
A third system monitors the path of the vehicle to ensure it's traveling in a straight line and not weaving about the road, as is common with a drunken driver.
Are people going to have to hit a button before they begin their journey to indicate either "Yeah, I might be wasted" or "No, I'm visiting my relatives and the roads out here weave all by themselves because the guy who laid the road was drunk, but that's no reason to punish me..."?
It's my own fault, but I wish "Intellectual Property" had a different abbreviation. Looking at the headline, I thought they were going to criminalize pirates who went around hijacking people's IP addresses...
Huh? Am I looking in the same place as you? The headline of the article reads: "Crave Talk: Is the $100 laptop the end for Moore's Law?"
One quote from the article:
Since 1965, the tech world has obsessed about keeping pace with Moore's Law -- an empirical observation that computing performance will double every 24 months.
Money quote:
Moore's law is great for making tech faster, and for making slower, existing tech cheaper, but when consumers realise their personal lust for faster hardware makes almost zero financial sense, and hurts the environment with greater demands for power, will they start to demand cheaper, more efficient 'third-world' computers that are just as effective?
We think so. The amount of interest generated by the XO, the ClassMate PC, and more recently the £200 Asus Eee PC is phenomenal. Most people in the Crave office are astounded by their low price and relatively high functionality, and are finding it difficult to justify buying anything else. If you want to play the latest games, well, the latest games consoles, while power-hogs, are relatively cheap and graphically very impressive.
Is it just me, is the phrasing a little off, or does that last sentence seem to imply that the latest games consoles exist outside of Moore's law? The latest game consoles are cheap and graphically impressive... because of Moore's Law...
Moore's Law is driven (in part) by the market. As long as there are large companies or government agencies or organizations willing to buy the latest and the greatest, then there will always be money for R&D to provide that.
Also, if you ask someone right now if what they have is all they will ever need, most people would probably say, "Yes, more or less." That's because they don't know what's coming down the line and they can't imagine what they potentially won't be able to do. If six months from now they aren't able to watch, say, Youtube v2.0 or run Microsoft Office Schwarzenegger Edition, suddenly they will want that $100 laptop to do more.
Besides, this hasn't happened in other industries. The available of cheap shoes doesn't stop Nike from spending millions of dollars to get athletes to endorse their lousy product. Nor has the availability of cheap, store-brand foods and drinks caused Heinz or Minutemaid to dynamically change their business model. I'd imagine (based, he says, freely on no information at all) that what (relatively high-priced) Coke does has much more of an impact on Pepsi's marketing strategy than what the makers of Mountain Lightning do...
Don't trust "it's all about" or "it turns out that to the contrary" or "set to fully replace" statements, especially when there's lack of evidence of what is claimed.
Ha! Very true. I once had a philosophy professor tell us that you could make any statement seem apparently true simply by prefacing it with: "But it turns out that..."
Clearly the ISPs can cover all their bases by saying that service sucks in remote areas because there aren't enough people out there to justify the heavy investment in newer technology and that service sucks in heavily populated areas because there are too many people hogging all the newer resources.
Interesting point, so I pulled a few numbers off of wikipedia...
In the entire 50 states of the US, the population density is: 31 per square kilometer (172nd in the world). California is 83.85 per square kilometer. New York (state) is 155.18 per square kilometer. Massachusetts is 312.68 per square kilometer. Washington State is 34.20 per square kilometer. By contrast, Montana is 2.39 per square kilometer.
Japan is 337/km per square kilometer. Germany is 230.9/km per square kilometer.
What I can't find quickly (and what would be useful) would be to see what percentage of Americans live in or near cities versus their European counterparts. I can't say for certain, but my guess based on the above would be that the number would be significantly less in the United States...
Another problem is that the population of the United States is much more stretched out than in those other countries (especially, duh, Japan) and therefore harder to physically reach. It's easy to reach the 50% of the population nearest the population centers, harder to reach the 50% that's farther away.
It's like the problem we had in the US of upgrading television stations to Hi-Def. In Europe, you only have to upgrade two or three transmitters per country. In the US you have hundreds of transmitters dotted throughout the country (not to mention the added trickiness of local ownership of individual local television stations)...
As long as no one figures out an exploit wherein the hacker can turn on my webcam and point it at the yellow sticky notes stuck to the side of my monitor, they'll never get my passwords.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah.. It'll be seen as a bad omen until -- I hope -- this teacher touches down safely.
And then I hope a new superstition replaces the current one...
I have nothing comical or insightful to add. I just hope that everything turns out for the best. I want to add my voice to that.
Especially since there is a teacher on board.
First they came for the smokers,
I did not speak out,
Because I did not smoke.
Then they came for the Big Mac eaters,
I did not speak out,
Because I ate at Subway.
Then they came for the beer drinkers,
I did not speak out,
Because I did not drink beer.
When they came for the people who breathed in polluted air,
There was no one to speak for me,
Because the rest of L.A. were already taken.
No, it's the same scene. The tether isn't there in the youtube snippet because the androids and untied it and tossed it into space (the Doctor untied his side for mobility's sake), hence the need for him to use the cricket ball...
So did an episode of Doctor Who. Only in that version, the Doctor is wearing just a spacesuit helmet without the rest of the suit. In addition, he gets stuck and ends up using a the momentum of throwing a cricket ball, bouncing it against an exterior wall of a spaceship and catching it to propel him in the direction he wanted to go. The physics are a little goofy, but it's probably the least goofy thing about that particular episode...
(The wikipedia page even has a screenshot of the dubious exercise.)
Er, so you've got a confrontation between a border agent and an illegal alien. Neither one can understand the language of the other. One of them suddenly feeling violently ill improves the situation... how?
Five bucks to the first man who manages to fill "2 or 3 HD DVDs" with if-else statements!
No.
...then stop. Just think about how much easier it would be to call a friend. Call a cab. Just... don't... drive.
In my experience, there is only one kind of person who... oh... isn't sure if they're legally drunk or not.
They're drunk.
And, I'm sorry, the two cases you make:
> People that are full of shit and don't want to admit an unpleasant truth.
The unpleasant truth is... they're drunk. And should not be driving that night.
> People that are reasonably scrupulous but, for one reason or another, > don't have the objective judgement or experience to tell. I've never > had a drink before driving before and I don't know how it will affect me.
They're drunk and should not be driving that night. And if they're genuinely unaware that they are drunk, then I feel sorry for them... but that doesn't stop them being drunk.
Look, my only point is that if you have to sit there and think. And sit there and hmm and haw about whether you're sober or not, and think about how much food you've had to balance out the booze, and think about how much time has passed, and how much booze you've consumed in a certain time frame...
Just spend the mental cycles you were going to spend on figuring out your sobriety on something more geeky instead and just take a cab.
The closest I think I've come to a pro-MS person was dealing with pro-PC people who really weren't pro-MS but were just sick to death of pro-Mac people.
(In fact, in conversations with my non-tech friends/family, whenever they complain about computers it is almost always the case that they complain about some oddity in a MS product. Usually it's a variation on: "I was using MS Word and it suddenly decided to change my layout without asking me!" )
Okay, so it detects that the driver is drunk. And the decision the car makes is to turn off access to the shift? Does it worry anyone out there that the car can override the driver? I mean, yes, if the driver is drunk, then probably the hunk of metal is better equipped to make decisions. But the first time this thing misfires there will be hell to pay.
And what happens if the drunk driver decides to drive around in first gear anyway? Will the steering automatically head towards the nearest embankment in an attempt to save time?
Also: Are people going to have to hit a button before they begin their journey to indicate either "Yeah, I might be wasted" or "No, I'm visiting my relatives and the roads out here weave all by themselves because the guy who laid the road was drunk, but that's no reason to punish me..."?
Can anyone tell me why there is a "[sic]" in that above quote? There don't seem to be any spelling/grammatical mistakes in the sentence.
It's my own fault, but I wish "Intellectual Property" had a different abbreviation. Looking at the headline, I thought they were going to criminalize pirates who went around hijacking people's IP addresses...
"It's easy to get hurt..."
"Like when I got my butt caught in the toaster."
One quote from the article:
Money quote:
Is it just me, is the phrasing a little off, or does that last sentence seem to imply that the latest games consoles exist outside of Moore's law? The latest game consoles are cheap and graphically impressive... because of Moore's Law...
Moore's Law is driven (in part) by the market. As long as there are large companies or government agencies or organizations willing to buy the latest and the greatest, then there will always be money for R&D to provide that.
Also, if you ask someone right now if what they have is all they will ever need, most people would probably say, "Yes, more or less." That's because they don't know what's coming down the line and they can't imagine what they potentially won't be able to do. If six months from now they aren't able to watch, say, Youtube v2.0 or run Microsoft Office Schwarzenegger Edition, suddenly they will want that $100 laptop to do more.
Besides, this hasn't happened in other industries. The available of cheap shoes doesn't stop Nike from spending millions of dollars to get athletes to endorse their lousy product. Nor has the availability of cheap, store-brand foods and drinks caused Heinz or Minutemaid to dynamically change their business model. I'd imagine (based, he says, freely on no information at all) that what (relatively high-priced) Coke does has much more of an impact on Pepsi's marketing strategy than what the makers of Mountain Lightning do...
Ha! Very true. I once had a philosophy professor tell us that you could make any statement seem apparently true simply by prefacing it with: "But it turns out that..."
Clearly the ISPs can cover all their bases by saying that service sucks in remote areas because there aren't enough people out there to justify the heavy investment in newer technology and that service sucks in heavily populated areas because there are too many people hogging all the newer resources.
Interesting point, so I pulled a few numbers off of wikipedia...
_ population_density
In the entire 50 states of the US, the population density is: 31 per square kilometer (172nd in the world).
California is 83.85 per square kilometer.
New York (state) is 155.18 per square kilometer.
Massachusetts is 312.68 per square kilometer.
Washington State is 34.20 per square kilometer.
By contrast, Montana is 2.39 per square kilometer.
Japan is 337/km per square kilometer.
Germany is 230.9/km per square kilometer.
What I can't find quickly (and what would be useful) would be to see what percentage of Americans live in or near cities versus their European counterparts. I can't say for certain, but my guess based on the above would be that the number would be significantly less in the United States...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by
I think we'll have to wait until the New York Times kills their silly "Select" feature: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/20/nyt-may-k ill-timesselect-_n_57155.html
Another problem is that the population of the United States is much more stretched out than in those other countries (especially, duh, Japan) and therefore harder to physically reach. It's easy to reach the 50% of the population nearest the population centers, harder to reach the 50% that's farther away.
It's like the problem we had in the US of upgrading television stations to Hi-Def. In Europe, you only have to upgrade two or three transmitters per country. In the US you have hundreds of transmitters dotted throughout the country (not to mention the added trickiness of local ownership of individual local television stations)...
As long as no one figures out an exploit wherein the hacker can turn on my webcam and point it at the yellow sticky notes stuck to the side of my monitor, they'll never get my passwords.
All space travelers will be issued with a Tom Baker scarf.