Mods, the parent is certainly not a troll. If you had played the original game (seems that you haven't,) you'd realize that it is better to mod it 'Funny.' I promise it's a joke, not a troll.
The club I belong to on my college campus built a Mosix cluster awhile back. It was one of our major projects. The way we got our computers was mostly by donation (due to the fact that we were academic in nature.) Really, all the computers we got were basically going into the garbage, so we say we picked them out of the garbage. From what I hear though, that's not all that uncommon or unbelievable. Take a look around perhaps and ask around.
I love how you can take statistics and make them sound good or bad depending on how you use them and in what form. 40% hm? That sounds major.
However, only two or three missions out of a hundred or so? That sounds like an amazing success rate.
( Keep in mind that I am a huge space travel fan.;-) )
Who in the world needs a browser open for several days? If you're worried about losing your place, check out a handy little extension called SessionSaver.
Sir that is two drinks and two small popcorns. Your total is $45.50. Have a nice day
Actually, I think that's what my total was last week. If you move the decimal over to the right one place, I think that will be a more accurate future representation.
To tell you the truth, it's probably a good ides that this occurs. I will try not to reiterate what others have said in response to your post. In my opinion, the more probes sent, the better the chances of getting good data. In other words, if they got together and made one probe, and it crashes (no matter how well-built it was, it's still possible), both parties lose out on a significant investment and data opportunities. On the other hand, if they each do their own thing, the one that succeeds can share the data from the sample with the other and each can draw their own conclusions based on that data.
I totally agree on all three points you made and usually apply them myself. I do try, though, to be tolerant even when one (or more) of those things are not met. Of course, I understand that I am more patient than many people.
While scrolling through the replies here, and most previous articles that the debate between science and religion (usually christianity) has cropped up, I've noticed that many posts in support of religion are generally modded down and scientific posts modded up, regardless of their quality. I do realize that this is a largely scientific community. I also realize that if one does not agree with something, they most generally will mod it down. But can we please have respect for others' beliefs? This will probably be largely ignored and/or have no effect. But, I still had to try. I would like to say that, yes, I am a man of science (well, a student of science at least). I am also one of religious (yes, christian) beliefs. To be honest, I don't see why the two can't co-exist (although in truth I don't believe in evolution theory.) That's not really the debate here. I just felt it necessary to draw to attention to anyone who reads this of the lack of tolerance there seems to be, on both sides.
Anyway, in order to stay on topic:
I'm kind of curious what the mistakes were in the initial simulations of this effect.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Very close to what I believe an Orwellian nightmare could be. Instead of the government controlling the news though, it would be yourself, seeing only what you want to see. So, if I get this straight, I can see nothing but good or bad news depending on my tastes. Not only does that sound bad, but wouldn't that reflect in my mind as well. Thinking (this is where the George Orwell thinking comes in) that everything in the world is going just perfectly.
Going one step further, isn't it possible for someone to possibly control this feature if they desired, thereby controlling what people believe? Scary stuff. Not something I enjoy thinking about myself.
I love Gmail, and I love the Google search engine. But those things aren't something I hope happens.
Slashdot Mirror
Worse. They use wma files.
Ah! Took me a minute. Had to quit thinking 2-dimensional. The bear must be white. The hunter is at the north pole.
Mods, the parent is certainly not a troll. If you had played the original game (seems that you haven't,) you'd realize that it is better to mod it 'Funny.' I promise it's a joke, not a troll.
The club I belong to on my college campus built a Mosix cluster awhile back. It was one of our major projects. The way we got our computers was mostly by donation (due to the fact that we were academic in nature.) Really, all the computers we got were basically going into the garbage, so we say we picked them out of the garbage. From what I hear though, that's not all that uncommon or unbelievable. Take a look around perhaps and ask around.
I love how you can take statistics and make them sound good or bad depending on how you use them and in what form. 40% hm? That sounds major. However, only two or three missions out of a hundred or so? That sounds like an amazing success rate. ( Keep in mind that I am a huge space travel fan. ;-) )
Who in the world needs a browser open for several days? If you're worried about losing your place, check out a handy little extension called SessionSaver.
To tell you the truth, it's probably a good ides that this occurs. I will try not to reiterate what others have said in response to your post. In my opinion, the more probes sent, the better the chances of getting good data. In other words, if they got together and made one probe, and it crashes (no matter how well-built it was, it's still possible), both parties lose out on a significant investment and data opportunities. On the other hand, if they each do their own thing, the one that succeeds can share the data from the sample with the other and each can draw their own conclusions based on that data.
I totally agree on all three points you made and usually apply them myself. I do try, though, to be tolerant even when one (or more) of those things are not met. Of course, I understand that I am more patient than many people.
While scrolling through the replies here, and most previous articles that the debate between science and religion (usually christianity) has cropped up, I've noticed that many posts in support of religion are generally modded down and scientific posts modded up, regardless of their quality. I do realize that this is a largely scientific community. I also realize that if one does not agree with something, they most generally will mod it down. But can we please have respect for others' beliefs? This will probably be largely ignored and/or have no effect. But, I still had to try. I would like to say that, yes, I am a man of science (well, a student of science at least). I am also one of religious (yes, christian) beliefs. To be honest, I don't see why the two can't co-exist (although in truth I don't believe in evolution theory.) That's not really the debate here. I just felt it necessary to draw to attention to anyone who reads this of the lack of tolerance there seems to be, on both sides. Anyway, in order to stay on topic: I'm kind of curious what the mistakes were in the initial simulations of this effect.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Very close to what I believe an Orwellian nightmare could be. Instead of the government controlling the news though, it would be yourself, seeing only what you want to see. So, if I get this straight, I can see nothing but good or bad news depending on my tastes. Not only does that sound bad, but wouldn't that reflect in my mind as well. Thinking (this is where the George Orwell thinking comes in) that everything in the world is going just perfectly. Going one step further, isn't it possible for someone to possibly control this feature if they desired, thereby controlling what people believe? Scary stuff. Not something I enjoy thinking about myself. I love Gmail, and I love the Google search engine. But those things aren't something I hope happens.