Those usually also contain the head line. But what the hell is "individual words" supposed to mean here? How much leeway can you have here as a for profit company? Would you be able to write a small synopsis of the article in your own individual words?
There's an HTML tag to tell google what to put in the article summary. All those 'dictionary' sites (for example) fill it with fluff so that google doesn't show the actual word definition, it's all "We;re the best dictionary, get the best definition of XXX here! We're the best!".
Newspapers could do exactly the same if they wanted. They think they can get free money instead so fuck 'em.
a) Having multiple models is good. You can draw a graph of best/worst cases and a line through the middle. Unfortunately that median line doesn't look good.
b) Even the earliest models are working out quite well:
Even if they were cheap they'd still be unworkable.
The ratio of energy needed to keep something up in the air vs. the amount needed to roll it along the ground ensures that "flying" will never be used by the masses.
I define colony the way everyone else does. A permanent settlement where you live your life there, and have children.
My dictionary says:
1) A country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country. 2) A group of people of one nationality or ethnic group living in a foreign city or country. 3) A community of animals or plants of one kind living close together or forming a physically connected structure.
Nothing about "living your life there" or "having children".
(and no, "settlers" doesn't imply those things either, a settlement is a "group of people living in the same place")
The way I had learned science was that most things are considered to be truth
Um, no.
many of the things of science fiction have a strange way of becoming common every day items... look at cell phones, or microwaves, or any number of other common items, 50 years ago many were only science fiction...
99% of science fiction didn't come true (and probably never will). Make enough predictions and some are bound to work out.
PS: The first handheld cellphone was 45 years ago and commercial carphones have existed since 1946.
Sure, I'd love to believe we'll terraform Mars. It'd be cool. I can't say it won't happen in 10,000 years. But it certainly won't happen in even 200.
With you 100% there.
Crazy 'ol Elon Musk think we're going to establish colonies there in the next 30 years!
Maybe his definition of 'colony' isn't the same as yours (or his is the definition the newspapers want to hear.
It would be pointless to send some guys to mars for just a few hours like they did with Apollo. I'm thinking more like the pressure domes in the martian movie. The technology to build that and send it to Mars will certainly exist in 30 years at the rate Elon is advancing his rocketry.
Artificial gravity so that people can survive the two month flight isn't too difficult - a long wire with the humans on one end and the cargo on the other spinning through space would do it.
Will anybody sign up for the trip, no matter how risky? You betcha.
Well the stock price is only about 75% of what it was about a year ago when all of this started coming out which means Zuck has lost about a quarter of his wealth. So there's that...
Yep. I'm sure it stings when you can only spend six million a day instead of eight.
Slashdot Mirror
Those usually also contain the head line. But what the hell is "individual words" supposed to mean here? How much leeway can you have here as a for profit company? Would you be able to write a small synopsis of the article in your own individual words?
There's an HTML tag to tell google what to put in the article summary. All those 'dictionary' sites (for example) fill it with fluff so that google doesn't show the actual word definition, it's all "We;re the best dictionary, get the best definition of XXX here! We're the best!".
Newspapers could do exactly the same if they wanted. They think they can get free money instead so fuck 'em.
Google is not a charity
Correct, but these laws would turn it into one.
PS: The news sites google is sending people to are full of adverts, etc. Should Google get a cut of that.
Google being passive aggressive here, I guess.
In short, Google are saying, "If I cannot play for free, then I'll take my ball altogether."
Nope. If google has to start paying you to to provide search hits for your site then their whole company collapses.
I do not think those Europeans will stand to be without Google News for long.
I can't wait for them to spend huge resources getting these laws passed only to see their web sites vanish from the web.
Yes, they are that stupid. It's already happened here in Spain.
If only there was a meta tag for sites to tell google exactly what to show in the headline/snippet for a search result.
As someone who actually knows about this technology... and the scanner in question, this thing really is a game changer.
Yep. This is a huge step forwards, Star Trek teleportation is now just around the corner.
I think you'll find it's mostly the algorithms related to number factoring that will fall.
AES256? Not so much.
Before SOME pre-quantum cryptographic algorithms are crackable in trivial timeframes.
FTFY.
Should happen this week...
You mean like when it dropped from $20,000 to $8000?
You might notice it never went back to $20,000. Just saying.
Apart from that one, no it hasn't dropped this much before.
The best thing about going to the cloud, is when something breaks because of Microsoft your clients believe you.
Governments don't care. They'll fine you just the same if you can't file the paperwork before midnight.
We didn't. Only YOU did.
And, FWIW:
a) Having multiple models is good. You can draw a graph of best/worst cases and a line through the middle. Unfortunately that median line doesn't look good.
b) Even the earliest models are working out quite well:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...
Even if they were cheap they'd still be unworkable.
The ratio of energy needed to keep something up in the air vs. the amount needed to roll it along the ground ensures that "flying" will never be used by the masses.
I define colony the way everyone else does. A permanent settlement where you live your life there, and have children.
My dictionary says:
1) A country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
2) A group of people of one nationality or ethnic group living in a foreign city or country.
3) A community of animals or plants of one kind living close together or forming a physically connected structure.
Nothing about "living your life there" or "having children".
(and no, "settlers" doesn't imply those things either, a settlement is a "group of people living in the same place")
They'd just eat more when they get there.
The only way people will move to Mars is if something is actively driving them away from earth.
The way we're polluting the Earth, it could still happen.
People (as a society) aren't TRYING to permanently live in Antarctica
Why would they? It's horrible outside and even basic supplies cost a fortune.
Now multiply that by 1,000,000 and you get "Mars".
When the first post is an ad-hominen then I guess there's no actual argument against what he's saying.
The way I had learned science was that most things are considered to be truth
Um, no.
many of the things of science fiction have a strange way of becoming common every day items... look at cell phones, or microwaves, or any number of other common items, 50 years ago many were only science fiction...
99% of science fiction didn't come true (and probably never will). Make enough predictions and some are bound to work out.
PS: The first handheld cellphone was 45 years ago and commercial carphones have existed since 1946.
Sure, I'd love to believe we'll terraform Mars. It'd be cool. I can't say it won't happen in 10,000 years. But it certainly won't happen in even 200.
With you 100% there.
Crazy 'ol Elon Musk think we're going to establish colonies there in the next 30 years!
Maybe his definition of 'colony' isn't the same as yours (or his is the definition the newspapers want to hear.
It would be pointless to send some guys to mars for just a few hours like they did with Apollo. I'm thinking more like the pressure domes in the martian movie. The technology to build that and send it to Mars will certainly exist in 30 years at the rate Elon is advancing his rocketry.
Artificial gravity so that people can survive the two month flight isn't too difficult - a long wire with the humans on one end and the cargo on the other spinning through space would do it.
Will anybody sign up for the trip, no matter how risky? You betcha.
Well the stock price is only about 75% of what it was about a year ago when all of this started coming out which means Zuck has lost about a quarter of his wealth. So there's that...
Yep. I'm sure it stings when you can only spend six million a day instead of eight.
Yep. His attitude during his senate hearing tells you everything you need to know about Facebook.
All those programming languages are perfectly fine if used correctly. You're mixing up shit languages with shit programmers.
Some languages are much better than other when it comes to expressing your exact intent as a programmer.
Weird that somebody who cares about "maintenance and re-use" would choose Python, a language famous for it's non-backwards compatibility.
Most of those look like there was noise on the modem when you typed them.
Likewise, shit languages like JavaScript and PHP, are popular because any code monkey can use them.
No, they're "popular" because that's all there is.
In a web browser? What can you use that isn't JavaScript?
On an ISP-hosted web server? What do they give you except PHP?
Plus: Most JavaScript/PHP is written in the form of unimportant little snippets, that's why it ends up on GitHub.