Agnostics just think the debate is pointless. You won't find out if there IS a god, you won't find out that there ISN'T. Athiests vary in their vocality, but firmly believe that they are right about something they'll have no proof, either. If you aren't an athiest, an athiest will think you are wrong and will be confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that you can't see the wisdom of their own position on the matter. Athiesm is just another religion. Agnostics generally don't get in your face or try to change your mind if you are a believer or a disbeliever (as they're all the same).
So, now the Chinese are aping the Japanese method and renamed the thinkpad the ideapad? No, they're simply ridding the Lenovo line of any trace of the old IBM culture and trademarks. Thirty years ago, IBM employees used to go to the nearest office supply cabinet, and pull out these little pocket notepads with a leatherette cover. On the leatherette cover, only the word "THINK" was printed, in gold foil lettering. It became so ingrained in the IBM employee culture that the name ThinkPad was an obvious choice for the laptop when it was released. Lenovo isn't IBM.
If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?
This has got to be a joke. The concept of "unclean hands" is not applicable on an international policy-and-treaty basis. One cannot ignore the rule of one treaty because another country ignores the rule of another treaty. Even though the US Constitution ranks the treaty as being the supreme law of the land (theoretically above anything the executive, legislative or judiciary can do), this does not apply to whether or not you can legitimately grab a copy of Britney's latest dance video without concern for authority.
Not to mention the new "lol()" built-in, which is like say(), but also removes random letters from the string, and appends 17 exclamation points. Better than the first draft of lol() which replaced letters from the string with l33t equivalents. They found it was a security risk because people could just inject eval { lol($_) } and it was valid Perl code to cause a kernel panic.
And does it matter that we don't know and that most scientists don't seem to know or care where they come from?
Am I the only one who thought this sentence smacked of Intelligent Design proposition?
See, I find no conflict between science and spirituality; I find a LOT of conflict between fans of science and fans of specific flavors of spirituality (religions). The Yankees and Red Sox don't really spend a lot of time foaming at the mouth about their opponents, but the rest of the folks in the stadiums sure do. If spirituality offers guidance as to WHY we're here, then science attempts to explain HOW. Either question can be ignored and you'll still live, honestly. Both questions may be answered and the answers may or may not satisfy you. The only difference that I see, which puts me in the science camp, is that scientists at least try to prove themselves wrong.
Did he get some kind of wizard trick to summon the dead spirit of JRR Tolkein to write a new novel which to utilize as a sequel?
Yeah, it's called Christopher Tolkien. That guy has been combing his dad's ashes for half a century to dump a ton of excess half-completed JRRT junk on the market.
Actually, from what I've heard, Christopher despises the whole movie chain because he doesn't have movie revenue rights, even though he's raking in tons of dough from the inevitable book reprints and other merchandising details.
One thought on a possible "sequel" that came to mind would be an opportunity to let Bilbo go exploring the Old Forest. Maybe an original Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, Old Man Willow and the Barrow Downs story, to make up for the lack of that chapter in the LotR:FotR. Of course, there's plenty that can happen right in the Shire, with Michel Delving and Lobelia Sackville-Baggins.
Okay, so they don't want to encase it in a piece of plastic with a big slider-pad for contacts. I'm sure SanDisk would be okay with direct integration of their storage chips onto motherboards too. I stand by my comment: this appears no different from existing capacities already available on the market. Why the huge press event?
Okay, so they made a chip that would fit in a microSDHC form factor. Is it faster? Is it lower-power? Is the interface more convenient? Is the chipset to host it already commonplace? Why would I want yet-another-memory-stick-format product in the already-crowded marketplace?
The word used in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is 'replicant.' This word doesn't appear in the PKD book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, by the way.
They did NOT pretend to be employees. When asked, they were simply guests, they were shopping, they were waiting for their girlfriend who is in another department, etc. They didn't try to help anyone, nor try to hinder anyone. The shirts used were just plain blue polo shirts with no special embroidery or logos. They simply arrived in the same colors as if by coincidence. Yes, they knew it would cause confusion. Sometimes confusion is just a part of joie de vivre.
....they don't have the sort of brain processes that allow a person to systematize knowledge about how one part of one thing works to understand how other parts or other things work, so memorizing instructions is all they can do.
In other words, they're just not very bright. I generally agree but I think "brightness" is a composite of several mental feats or traits. Just being enthusiastic about a task or subject can sometimes appear as brightness. Just being able to memorize a metric butt-load of dry facts can sometimes appear as brightness. The above trait is the ability to extrapolate across kinds of information, and/or the ability to generalize various facts by their common aspects, and these are depressingly rare abilities. Some people really do have moments where nothing is going on, thoughtwise; others seem to have something clicking at all times. Having a little of all of these traits is often equated with a lump really bright label.
I think it would be useful if, as a part of being certified, a teacher must take an oral oath that includes something to the effect of "and I do understand that some students may surpass, or come to surpass, my own knowledge or skill, in this subject or any other subject."
Some CS major probably figured this out instead of traveling salesman.
Indeed, it's a reference to a classic computational logic problem, "the Traveling Salesman problem."
What's funny here is that a "few left turns" solution is still in the domain of the Traveling Salesman. It's not a case of "instead of," it's just a tiny bit more detailed as far as algorithms go. It simply attaches a different cost or weight on different edges of the graph, and in fact different directions of the same edge. Now, it takes a fair amount of work to provide accurate costs for each mile and corner along a route, but given that embedded GPS platforms can handle this sort of level of detail, I'm not worried about that.
This whole space-tourism thing is at a precarious stage. Should there be just one freak accident, their revenue prospects would turn off like a Fossett.
Sorry, bad pun. In the 1970s, we seemed to be ready to do daring things even after lives are lost. Today, the public is far more risk averse. One more shuttle disaster and we'll be on the ground for twenty years. And I doubt a private company would fare much better than NASA in this regard.
The fact is, the average user shouldn't have to be "computer savvy" and running spyware cleaners should do just that. Blaming "average users" for the fact that roadway dangers exist is missing the point.
I'll agree with that sentiment to a point, but only to a point.
The fact is, the average car driver shouldn't have to be "car savvy" and autopilot functions should do just that. Blaming "average drivers" for the fact that such dangers exist is missing the point.
To say that end users shouldn't have to concern themselves with the details of computers on an untrusted network is to say that the computer should have a bullet-proof security system, it should be an appliance as trouble-free as a clothes-iron. Security is not a product, it's a process; the security landscape is not static, it is ever-changing. Couple this with the general dynamic that security is inversely proportional to convenience, and/or vulnerability is proportional to flexibility. I'll take the slightly inconvenient, highly flexible computers we have today. Every user should know something of the basics of security, and it's a false ideal to build infinitely inflexible, inconvenient, but secure machines.
All too often, I have seen games where the level design consisted of the following cliche decisions. Level 1 should be garden-themed, level 3 should let you swim (if you're ever allowed to swim), level 4 should be slippery ice, level 6 should be raging lava which kill you if you touch it, and level 8 should be a screwed-up-gravity level that lets you walk on the ceilings or reorient yourself in space.
What's funny is that these same gameplay decisions are leaking into the storylines of modern adventure movies. For example, the plucky racing scene in Cars, or Star Wars I. Or the sidescroller robot factories in Minority Report and Star Wars II. Or the "jumping on floating bits across lava" scene in... uh, Star Wars III. The transitions in Lord of the Rings from "ice" to "fire" to "water" to "forest" areas actually seem to make sense, but only because they take place over 36 hours of video, or 1600 pages of text. Cramming it into a single game or movie with almost no transition just makes it seem ridiculous.
The researchers used this method to find how individuals on the IMDb privately rated films on Netflix, in the process possibly working out their political affiliation, sexual preferences and a number of other personal details
{tongueincheek}Yeah, but the question is, will knowing those personal facts generate better movie recommendations?{/tongueincheek}
When there's a significant prize at stake, researchers can try all sorts of slimy tricks to win. (I'm not saying that's the motive behind this report, but there are many "researchers" going for the prize.) And when there's significant profits at stake, a corporation will damn-fire-certainly use whatever means they can use to maximize those profits, regardless of whether it might be "ethical."
You know, if Boeing were to reel in their telecommuters, that is one thing. But this is the freakin' phone and network company saying that a phone and network just don't cut it as the primary ways to communicate professionally. What sort of message is this going to signal to big corporate customers who want to spend tons of cash on promoting and providing telecommuting solutions for their own staffs? Oh, yeah, nothing.
Meanwhile, I thought of "The Number of the Beast," in which 6^6^6 was the number of alternate universes, many of them being a well-known fictional universe (dimensional leaks inspiring authors and readers, you see). I was waiting for Dorothy of Oz or Jubal Harshaw to make a comment here.
When I was working on a MMORPG years ago, this sort of behavior was a worry. It was a much smaller, less consequential worry, but it was there. Player A would call the company, and whine to mommy that Player B was breaking the rules. We had to be careful about policies so we didn't just disable Player B prematurely during the investigation, or it would become a new dynamic in the game. Want to invade a guild hall? Make sure their best players are disabled due to investigations.
It didn't catch on, but at the time I called this a DOS by TOS: a denial of service by (ab)using the terms of service; the terms of service can be a weapon if the environment is competitive enough.
I don't see any stars is this a fake video of the moon.
I don't know why this is modded at least +2 Insightful. It's either very poorly informed, or a reference to a common misconception. You generally don't see stars in space images, unless there's NO other sun-illuminated object in the near foreground (a moon, a satellite, etc.), because of the sensor's dynamic range. Any moonshot on the sunny side is like a very bright sunny day on off-white snow, and the stars just can't compete for exposure.
The stars are a millionth the brightness of any nearby object that is sunlit. If you tune up the sensitivity to catch the faint stars, the sunlit objects overpower the sensors and you get solid white or big streaky blotches.
The human eye's biggest advantage to manmade cameras is that of dynamic range. We have many components to our eye anatomy and physiology that let us cope with extreme differences in brightness; we can see some of the brightest stars even while fairly bright objects are nearby. We do this in part with better dynamic range, but we also cope by moving our head, shielding our eyes, squinting, and not paying attention to the brightest parts of the scene when interested in the dimmer elements. Cameras can't do all that and catch a single image.
Sure, what kid hasn't read the little brochure in their packet of Legos that explains that you don't call them Legos, but you call them Lego Bricks? For a while I thought it was pretty leet, like it was a cool "in" phrase. Now I just realize that they're doing what they gotta do to defend their trademark, which is "necessary" for them to lose protection in the face of cultural dilution. You know what, though? I ain't their bitch. I call 'em Legos. Yeah, too bad. Seeing as how everyone in America says Legos and applies the concept to everything (including TFA), I'd have to say they already lost this battle. I'm not going to go out of my way to explain their recommended legal terminology. Put another way, I'm going to speak English and not Corporate.
If you pay attention, you will note that each time you visit the temple, you have a new tools at your disposal, and that new tool will let you open up new secrets in most levels of the temple. You can optimize your time by using these carefully. By the end of the game, if you learn all the tricks, you can traverse the whole temple in about 30 seconds of elapsed time. You also get extras like more treasure maps and ship parts for your troubles. I agree it seemed repetitive at first, but they really made pretty clever dungeon levels with layers of puzzles in them.
Slashdot Mirror
Agnostics just think the debate is pointless. You won't find out if there IS a god, you won't find out that there ISN'T. Athiests vary in their vocality, but firmly believe that they are right about something they'll have no proof, either. If you aren't an athiest, an athiest will think you are wrong and will be confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that you can't see the wisdom of their own position on the matter. Athiesm is just another religion. Agnostics generally don't get in your face or try to change your mind if you are a believer or a disbeliever (as they're all the same).
This has got to be a joke. The concept of "unclean hands" is not applicable on an international policy-and-treaty basis. One cannot ignore the rule of one treaty because another country ignores the rule of another treaty. Even though the US Constitution ranks the treaty as being the supreme law of the land (theoretically above anything the executive, legislative or judiciary can do), this does not apply to whether or not you can legitimately grab a copy of Britney's latest dance video without concern for authority.
Am I the only one who thought this sentence smacked of Intelligent Design proposition?
See, I find no conflict between science and spirituality; I find a LOT of conflict between fans of science and fans of specific flavors of spirituality (religions). The Yankees and Red Sox don't really spend a lot of time foaming at the mouth about their opponents, but the rest of the folks in the stadiums sure do. If spirituality offers guidance as to WHY we're here, then science attempts to explain HOW. Either question can be ignored and you'll still live, honestly. Both questions may be answered and the answers may or may not satisfy you. The only difference that I see, which puts me in the science camp, is that scientists at least try to prove themselves wrong.
Yeah, it's called Christopher Tolkien. That guy has been combing his dad's ashes for half a century to dump a ton of excess half-completed JRRT junk on the market.
Actually, from what I've heard, Christopher despises the whole movie chain because he doesn't have movie revenue rights, even though he's raking in tons of dough from the inevitable book reprints and other merchandising details.
One thought on a possible "sequel" that came to mind would be an opportunity to let Bilbo go exploring the Old Forest. Maybe an original Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, Old Man Willow and the Barrow Downs story, to make up for the lack of that chapter in the LotR:FotR. Of course, there's plenty that can happen right in the Shire, with Michel Delving and Lobelia Sackville-Baggins.
Okay, so they don't want to encase it in a piece of plastic with a big slider-pad for contacts. I'm sure SanDisk would be okay with direct integration of their storage chips onto motherboards too. I stand by my comment: this appears no different from existing capacities already available on the market. Why the huge press event?
Okay, so they made a chip that would fit in a microSDHC form factor. Is it faster? Is it lower-power? Is the interface more convenient? Is the chipset to host it already commonplace? Why would I want yet-another-memory-stick-format product in the already-crowded marketplace?
The word used in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is 'replicant.' This word doesn't appear in the PKD book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, by the way.
They did NOT pretend to be employees. When asked, they were simply guests, they were shopping, they were waiting for their girlfriend who is in another department, etc. They didn't try to help anyone, nor try to hinder anyone. The shirts used were just plain blue polo shirts with no special embroidery or logos. They simply arrived in the same colors as if by coincidence. Yes, they knew it would cause confusion. Sometimes confusion is just a part of joie de vivre.
....they don't have the sort of brain processes that allow a person to systematize knowledge about how one part of one thing works to understand how other parts or other things work, so memorizing instructions is all they can do. In other words, they're just not very bright. I generally agree but I think "brightness" is a composite of several mental feats or traits. Just being enthusiastic about a task or subject can sometimes appear as brightness. Just being able to memorize a metric butt-load of dry facts can sometimes appear as brightness. The above trait is the ability to extrapolate across kinds of information, and/or the ability to generalize various facts by their common aspects, and these are depressingly rare abilities. Some people really do have moments where nothing is going on, thoughtwise; others seem to have something clicking at all times. Having a little of all of these traits is often equated with a lump really bright label.I think it would be useful if, as a part of being certified, a teacher must take an oral oath that includes something to the effect of "and I do understand that some students may surpass, or come to surpass, my own knowledge or skill, in this subject or any other subject."
Indeed, it's a reference to a classic computational logic problem, "the Traveling Salesman problem."
What's funny here is that a "few left turns" solution is still in the domain of the Traveling Salesman. It's not a case of "instead of," it's just a tiny bit more detailed as far as algorithms go. It simply attaches a different cost or weight on different edges of the graph, and in fact different directions of the same edge. Now, it takes a fair amount of work to provide accurate costs for each mile and corner along a route, but given that embedded GPS platforms can handle this sort of level of detail, I'm not worried about that.
Nobody deserves rape. You should be thankful that most of society does not share your sense of justice.
This whole space-tourism thing is at a precarious stage. Should there be just one freak accident, their revenue prospects would turn off like a Fossett.
Sorry, bad pun. In the 1970s, we seemed to be ready to do daring things even after lives are lost. Today, the public is far more risk averse. One more shuttle disaster and we'll be on the ground for twenty years. And I doubt a private company would fare much better than NASA in this regard.
I'll agree with that sentiment to a point, but only to a point.
The fact is, the average car driver shouldn't have to be "car savvy" and autopilot functions should do just that. Blaming "average drivers" for the fact that such dangers exist is missing the point.To say that end users shouldn't have to concern themselves with the details of computers on an untrusted network is to say that the computer should have a bullet-proof security system, it should be an appliance as trouble-free as a clothes-iron. Security is not a product, it's a process; the security landscape is not static, it is ever-changing. Couple this with the general dynamic that security is inversely proportional to convenience, and/or vulnerability is proportional to flexibility. I'll take the slightly inconvenient, highly flexible computers we have today. Every user should know something of the basics of security, and it's a false ideal to build infinitely inflexible, inconvenient, but secure machines.
All too often, I have seen games where the level design consisted of the following cliche decisions. Level 1 should be garden-themed, level 3 should let you swim (if you're ever allowed to swim), level 4 should be slippery ice, level 6 should be raging lava which kill you if you touch it, and level 8 should be a screwed-up-gravity level that lets you walk on the ceilings or reorient yourself in space.
What's funny is that these same gameplay decisions are leaking into the storylines of modern adventure movies. For example, the plucky racing scene in Cars, or Star Wars I. Or the sidescroller robot factories in Minority Report and Star Wars II. Or the "jumping on floating bits across lava" scene in... uh, Star Wars III. The transitions in Lord of the Rings from "ice" to "fire" to "water" to "forest" areas actually seem to make sense, but only because they take place over 36 hours of video, or 1600 pages of text. Cramming it into a single game or movie with almost no transition just makes it seem ridiculous.
The opposite of Progress is what, again?
{tongueincheek}Yeah, but the question is, will knowing those personal facts generate better movie recommendations?{/tongueincheek}
When there's a significant prize at stake, researchers can try all sorts of slimy tricks to win. (I'm not saying that's the motive behind this report, but there are many "researchers" going for the prize.) And when there's significant profits at stake, a corporation will damn-fire-certainly use whatever means they can use to maximize those profits, regardless of whether it might be "ethical."
You know, if Boeing were to reel in their telecommuters, that is one thing. But this is the freakin' phone and network company saying that a phone and network just don't cut it as the primary ways to communicate professionally. What sort of message is this going to signal to big corporate customers who want to spend tons of cash on promoting and providing telecommuting solutions for their own staffs? Oh, yeah, nothing.
Meanwhile, I thought of "The Number of the Beast," in which 6^6^6 was the number of alternate universes, many of them being a well-known fictional universe (dimensional leaks inspiring authors and readers, you see). I was waiting for Dorothy of Oz or Jubal Harshaw to make a comment here.
When I was working on a MMORPG years ago, this sort of behavior was a worry. It was a much smaller, less consequential worry, but it was there. Player A would call the company, and whine to mommy that Player B was breaking the rules. We had to be careful about policies so we didn't just disable Player B prematurely during the investigation, or it would become a new dynamic in the game. Want to invade a guild hall? Make sure their best players are disabled due to investigations.
It didn't catch on, but at the time I called this a DOS by TOS: a denial of service by (ab)using the terms of service; the terms of service can be a weapon if the environment is competitive enough.
I don't know why this is modded at least +2 Insightful. It's either very poorly informed, or a reference to a common misconception. You generally don't see stars in space images, unless there's NO other sun-illuminated object in the near foreground (a moon, a satellite, etc.), because of the sensor's dynamic range. Any moonshot on the sunny side is like a very bright sunny day on off-white snow, and the stars just can't compete for exposure.
The stars are a millionth the brightness of any nearby object that is sunlit. If you tune up the sensitivity to catch the faint stars, the sunlit objects overpower the sensors and you get solid white or big streaky blotches.
The human eye's biggest advantage to manmade cameras is that of dynamic range. We have many components to our eye anatomy and physiology that let us cope with extreme differences in brightness; we can see some of the brightest stars even while fairly bright objects are nearby. We do this in part with better dynamic range, but we also cope by moving our head, shielding our eyes, squinting, and not paying attention to the brightest parts of the scene when interested in the dimmer elements. Cameras can't do all that and catch a single image.
Sure, what kid hasn't read the little brochure in their packet of Legos that explains that you don't call them Legos, but you call them Lego Bricks? For a while I thought it was pretty leet, like it was a cool "in" phrase. Now I just realize that they're doing what they gotta do to defend their trademark, which is "necessary" for them to lose protection in the face of cultural dilution. You know what, though? I ain't their bitch. I call 'em Legos. Yeah, too bad. Seeing as how everyone in America says Legos and applies the concept to everything (including TFA), I'd have to say they already lost this battle. I'm not going to go out of my way to explain their recommended legal terminology. Put another way, I'm going to speak English and not Corporate.
If you pay attention, you will note that each time you visit the temple, you have a new tools at your disposal, and that new tool will let you open up new secrets in most levels of the temple. You can optimize your time by using these carefully. By the end of the game, if you learn all the tricks, you can traverse the whole temple in about 30 seconds of elapsed time. You also get extras like more treasure maps and ship parts for your troubles. I agree it seemed repetitive at first, but they really made pretty clever dungeon levels with layers of puzzles in them.