Something like this in textbooks would be extremely valuable. You could have the normal dry text followed by a well-done audio/visual presentation of the presented concepts.
Heh, I just came to think of the posters in the "Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban" movie where the image of Sirius Black were live.
Actually, we'll get there in a few years ourselves, with live images on flat electronic "paper". As for videos, there are fallback methods. Provide a static image as well as a brief text describing the content of the video. The dual effect is that it can be printed as well as being more accessible. I don't see much of a use myself, but there is nothing stopping MS from extending on the standard.
What's the deal about all these IANAL disclaimers?
If I said I was a lawyer and someone took my bad advice, do you REALLY think they will get anywhere with it?? "Yes your honor. This Nørwegian guy told me on an internet discussion group to steal from the rich. Apparently some english dude did it many years ago and he was fine! He is the one to blame, not me!"
I'm not sure if this is a media thing or not, but americans seems obsessed with suing one another. I don't know anyone that has been sued. Is it a relatively normal thing in the US?
Or better yet you can use something only IE supports, conditional comments.
<!--[if IE]> We see that you're using Internet Explorer. Due to the high cost of maintenance the usage of this browser puts on developers around the world, we have engaged in a boycott of this browser. Please visit http://browsehappy.com/ for more information regarding alternatives to your browser. <![endif]--> <!--[if !IE]> --> Put actual content here, alternatively omit the !IE comment tag and display the above as a notice while still allowing usage of the site. <!-- <![endif]-->
They have been supported by IE since 5.0 and validates happily as xml.
In Norway, there is an electrical company called "Tussa kraft". It didn't fare too well with the icelandics they had a conference with since "Tussa kraft" apparently means "Cunt juice" in their language.
The problem I had with that particular episode of Bullshit! was that they seemed to miss the point that some recycling has to be done since the materials we use are non-renewable, such as plastic. I don't claim to be an expert, but plastic is a by-product of oil. When the oil runs out, no more plastic.
Sure, it's cheaper to throw it away _now_, but it will be more expensive to dig up old plastic later on than to recycle what we have now.
Evolution works, i've run simulations on my own computer and there are algorithms using the principle of evolution to tweak values in use in systems today. Many games use a simplified version of these to tweak the difficulty automatically.
Noone is preventing anyone an open hearing of intelligent design. What I am against is pushing a proven theory aside to something which has not been proven. Intelligent design provides a couple good arguments, but arguments are NOT proof! I'm not even sure that it is currently possible to prove that the universe was created in the way that's claimed, but until it is, it does not have any place in science.
It is extremely hard to get a theory accepted as hard fact (or as hard a fact as science allows itself), and that is the way it should be. We've had thousands of years of doing it 'the other way' and it didn't work.
Wether creationism is true or not isn't interesting in this case. The point is that creationism has not been proved while evolution has (to the point of accepted science).
This is how I got convinced myself: Given a set of rules, random mutations will elevate those individuals which best fits them. Doing a quick computer simulation of a simplified evolutionary system is relatively trivial. Nature's evolution works principally the same way, it's just more complex/detailed. Evolution WORKS, this cannot be disputed. Wether evolution is what got us here is a _discussion_ best left to the philosophy classes.
My point is that some people thought that evolution didn't match their belief system, and so it had to make way in the schools for something they could believe in. Their holy grail is the 'intelligent design', which in my opinion is creationism packed in some pseudo-science coating. (Yes, I've read about the flagellan rotary motor).
I admit I haven't read the patent, but I would think this is more a patent on a mathematical equation. Equations has been ruled to be unpatentable, probably since it really was invented several billion years ago (depending on your beliefs), we merely rediscover them.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm, I checked my system properties and what's listed is:
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor
2800+
1.81 Ghz, 1,00 GB RAM
Same indecision, albeit at opposite sides. I'd let this single one slide because of this, although I don't believe the story as a whole.
Heh, I just came to think of the posters in the "Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban" movie where the image of Sirius Black were live.
Actually, we'll get there in a few years ourselves, with live images on flat electronic "paper". As for videos, there are fallback methods. Provide a static image as well as a brief text describing the content of the video. The dual effect is that it can be printed as well as being more accessible. I don't see much of a use myself, but there is nothing stopping MS from extending on the standard.
What's the deal about all these IANAL disclaimers?
If I said I was a lawyer and someone took my bad advice, do you REALLY think they will get anywhere with it?? "Yes your honor. This Nørwegian guy told me on an internet discussion group to steal from the rich. Apparently some english dude did it many years ago and he was fine! He is the one to blame, not me!"
I'm not sure if this is a media thing or not, but americans seems obsessed with suing one another. I don't know anyone that has been sued. Is it a relatively normal thing in the US?
SVG can contain HTML.
I should have written that as "God may exist, I choose not to choose which god, if any, to believe in."
Opera has separate choices for third-party cookies.
Defendant: "That's correct your honor. I didn't mean to shoot the clerk, I just couldn't figure out how to turn the safety back on."
Judge: "Oh, well... Okay then. I guess it was a simple mistake. Not guilty!"
I'll make a guess...
"Agno" as in "Agnostic" -> God may exist, I choose not to choose which to believe in.
"ka[pa]", long shot, but as in kappa?.
"[pa]thetic" - If you say so...
Or at least very cheap.
In Norway, there is an electrical company called "Tussa kraft". It didn't fare too well with the icelandics they had a conference with since "Tussa kraft" apparently means "Cunt juice" in their language.
Can any icelandics confirm that this is the case?
The problem I had with that particular episode of Bullshit! was that they seemed to miss the point that some recycling has to be done since the materials we use are non-renewable, such as plastic. I don't claim to be an expert, but plastic is a by-product of oil. When the oil runs out, no more plastic.
Sure, it's cheaper to throw it away _now_, but it will be more expensive to dig up old plastic later on than to recycle what we have now.
Did anyone else read that as "McDonald's"? :-P
More likely, they will include their upcoming avalanche technology.
With FREE DRM!!
Evolution works, i've run simulations on my own computer and there are algorithms using the principle of evolution to tweak values in use in systems today. Many games use a simplified version of these to tweak the difficulty automatically.
Noone is preventing anyone an open hearing of intelligent design. What I am against is pushing a proven theory aside to something which has not been proven. Intelligent design provides a couple good arguments, but arguments are NOT proof! I'm not even sure that it is currently possible to prove that the universe was created in the way that's claimed, but until it is, it does not have any place in science.
It is extremely hard to get a theory accepted as hard fact (or as hard a fact as science allows itself), and that is the way it should be. We've had thousands of years of doing it 'the other way' and it didn't work.
Wether creationism is true or not isn't interesting in this case. The point is that creationism has not been proved while evolution has (to the point of accepted science).
This is how I got convinced myself: Given a set of rules, random mutations will elevate those individuals which best fits them. Doing a quick computer simulation of a simplified evolutionary system is relatively trivial. Nature's evolution works principally the same way, it's just more complex/detailed. Evolution WORKS, this cannot be disputed. Wether evolution is what got us here is a _discussion_ best left to the philosophy classes.
My point is that some people thought that evolution didn't match their belief system, and so it had to make way in the schools for something they could believe in. Their holy grail is the 'intelligent design', which in my opinion is creationism packed in some pseudo-science coating. (Yes, I've read about the flagellan rotary motor).
I admit I haven't read the patent, but I would think this is more a patent on a mathematical equation. Equations has been ruled to be unpatentable, probably since it really was invented several billion years ago (depending on your beliefs), we merely rediscover them.