LOL, nice. It says Raman Spectroscopy, but the Ramen Spectroscopy you speak of is quite interesting too:)
(BTW, Raman Spectroscopy is named after Sir C V Raman, who won the Physics Nobel in 1930. One story about him that the Wikipedia article doesn't (yet?) mention is that he had booked his tickets to Stockholm several months before the Nobel prizes were announced! Another that it does mention is that when he was offered a toast, he replied, being a teetotaller, "Sir, you have seen the Raman effect on alcohol; please do not try to see the alcohol effect on Raman.";)
Hope for the best, expect the worst, and take whatever comes
I agree with "hope for the best" — as the article says, people who expect bad things to happen are just making themselves miserable, without actually gaining anything from it.
I certainly don't agree with "expect the worst", that's exactly what's wrong. One must be prepared for the worst, not expect it. That is, you must think about the worst-case scenario and how to handle it instead of being foolishly optimistic and not worrying about it at all, but that does not mean you must actually believe that the worst-case thing is what will happen. The best state to be in is "I feel everything will turn out well (but if it doesn't, then I'm prepared for that too)."
(And as for "take whatever comes", you don't really have a choice there, do you?:p)
Actually, it might not be a good idea...
Obligatory quote from I-don't-know-where:
People say Microsoft paid $14M for using the Rolling Stones song 'Start me up' in their commercials. This is wrong. Microsoft paid $14M only for a part of the song. For instance, they didn't use the line 'You'll make a grown man cry'.
What the summary doesn't point out is that women and men seem to view the internet differently.
the research found that men value the net for the freedom it gives them to try new ways of doing things.
By contrast women like the opportunities the net gives them to make and maintain human connections.
However, I have my own doubts about correct this research is --
The Pew report also found that men are more likely to use the net to get at all kinds of information about sports results, weather, news, job offers and consumer ratings for goods and services. Men were also more likely to use the net for recreation and to listen to music, gather information for hobbies and take part in online fantasy sports leagues.
All that is fine, but any research that doesn't mention porn must be flawed;)
I know I'm replying to a troll's offtopic post, but the link he gave is interesting: http://www.pakin.org/complaint. It randomly generates a generic complaint letter against whatever person or company you type in. As suggested, I typed in Microsoft, and the result seemed somewhat appropriate to Microsoft! I guess this ability of ours to find similarities and look for correct things in a random list also explains why generic newspaper astrology often works.
Here's the first few lines of the automatically generated Microsoft letter:
I could write a very angry letter right now about Microsoft, but I decided instead merely to express some constructive criticism. One of my objectives is to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity. Microsoft knows how to lie. It's too bad it doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying.
Looking at it on the bright side, Microsoft's allegations are sheer idiocy. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: What exactly is Microsoft trying to hide? A clue might be that the term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of Microsoft. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to it, which is why I maintain that Microsoft never stops boasting about its generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, its claimed magnanimousness is thoroughly chimerical and, furthermore, you should never forget the three most important facets of Microsoft's self-fulfilling prophecies, namely their wild origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. I can assure you that the first lies that Microsoft told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; its lies will grow until they blot out the sun.... Microsoft would toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window if it got the chance.
Um, okay, it's not perfect, not everything above applies (and there was some more that I left out), but still, you see the point. Heck, a lot of the stuff in the parent troll about Slashdot applies to it quite well:)
I just read this somewhere; thought everyone might find it useful --
Go to Tools->Options->OpenOffice.org->Java and uncheck the "Use a Java Runtime Environment". (AFAIK, it doesn't break anything I use.)
You mean you haven't heard of Flashblock? (Install it from here.)
It does exactly what you want—blocks all Flash with a box with a Play button on it, which you can click if you want to allow that Flash object to play.
Yep. I remember reading a Number Theory book long ago that Skewe's number 10^10^10^34 was "the largest number which has ever served any definite purpose in mathematics", but apparently, things have changed since then. The largest meaningful (but useless, as you pointed out) number used is apparently Graham's Number, which has even been listed by the Guinness Book of World Records as such. Tetration is explained here, or quite a lot of notation is explained here.
The best page about large numbers, however, is clearly the one at MROB, beautifully written.
But the amusing thing about this Graham's Number is that it is an upper bound on some quantity, which experts believe is equal to 6. That's right, SIX. So it's not only the largest number ever used; it's also probably the worst upper-bound ever:)
Physicist: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is an experimental error...
Logician: Hypothesis: All odd numbers are prime Proof: 1. If a proof exists, then the hypothesis must be true 2. The proof exists; you're reading it now. From 1 and 2 follows that all odd numbers are prime
and oh, lots of others.
Another one of note:
GNU programmer: % prime usage: prime [-nV] [--quiet] [--silent] [--version] [-e script] --catenate --concatenate | c --create | d --diff --compare | r --append | t --list | u --update | x -extract --get [ --atime-preserve ] [ -b, --block-size N ] [ -B, --read-full-blocks ] [ -C, --directory DIR ] [--checkpoint ] [ -f, --file [HOSTNAME:]F ] [ --force-local ] [ -F, --info-script F --new-volume-script F ] [-G, --incremental ] [ -g, --listed-incremental F ] [ -h, --dereference ] [ -i, --ignore-zeros ] [ --ignore-failed-read ] [ -k, --keep-old-files ] [ -K, --starting-file F ] [ -l, --one-file-system ] [ -L, --tape-length N ] [ -m, --modification-time ] [ -M, --multi-volume ] [ -N, --after-date DATE, --newer DATE ] [ -o, --old-archive, --portability ] [ -O, --to-stdout ] [ -p, --same-permissions, --preserve-permissions ] [ -P, --absolute-paths ] [ --preserve ] [ -R, --record-number ] [ [-f script-file] [--expression=script] [--file=script-file] [file...] prime: you must specify exactly one of the r, c, t, x, or d options For more information, type "prime --help''
Huh? The article was written by "Suprnova's admin Sloncek". He is the one who came close to being prosecuted, his computers were confiscated, etc. He is the only one who can give an account of the story, and if he choses to say blah blah and blah blah, there is nothing anyone else can do to fill in those details.
Your remarks would make sense if an original news item was dumbed down for the "general public".
If the guy who got the letter from the prosecutor does not wish to quote verbatim from it, or he thinks it is not relevant, why question it? It's probably not relevant anyway, just some law numbers and dates.
He does provide the original letter (in Slovenian), so read it yourself for the gory details. Or, scroll down for helpful translationsbelow.
I got this in my mail a few days ago. Surprised no one else has posted it yet:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Augusta Molnar < amolnar@<snip>.org> Date: Dec 8, 2005 6:26 AM Subject: [GKD] Microsoft Donations: Roses with Thorns? To: gkd@<snip>.edc.org
Dear GKD Members,
I am writing from Oaxaca, Mexico where I am visiting communities in the highlands. They have been beneficiaries of a very cool project financed in part by the Gates foundation to install a wireless connection and a set of computers for the schools. We are working on a network in the Latin America region for communities for which we use by preference FireFox as our browser. We suggested they try this browser as Explorer was causing problems, and discovered to our surprise that the Gates foundation "gift" comes with tags.
The computer network does not allow any of the users of the donated computers to install any software not owned by Microsoft, even any open source software. The network within which the computers reside will not allow any individual computers to download software to install, ostensibly to prevent viruses and incompatible software from jeopardizing the Microsoft system.
These are computers installed for educational purposes in a number of telecenters in the public libraries in Mexico for all the young students preparing for a global world. These computers are therefore their only affordable access to the Internet and to learning about computers and programs. A significant number of them will leave this town to work at least part of their life elsewhere in Mexico or in the U.S. Their work and career opportunities will depend upon their skills and preparedness.
I am reminded of my youth, working in the vicinity of USAID programs which only purchased American-made cars shipped to remote corners of Asia for irrigation projects, etc., because the tied money only allowed US bids. (Ever try to blow up a pneumatic truck tire with a bicycle pump in a small town in Asia? )
Is this standard Gates foundation policies?????? Is this type of tag allowed??
Interested to hear from those of you who are more knowledgeable on this point.
Augusta Molnar Director, Community and Markets Program Forest Trends 1050 Potomac Street NW Washington, D.C. 20007 Phone: <snip> Fax: <snip> www.forest-trends.org
------------
(Sorry for all the "snip"s; but you never know what sort of people frequent Slashdot!)
Sure, but you can be sure someone is taking games too seriously, when something like this happens. When did trading in games start spilling over to real life and money, BTW?
This of course assumes that DaVinci captured her exact expression... Chances are that the painting just developed that way.
Ah, Intelligent Design vs Evolution for paintings./ducks
Also, the fact that humans are more likely to do unnecessary steps may indicate a greater willingness on the part of humans to experiment, which is why we have computers, and keep chimps in cages, and not the other way around.
Huh? The fact here is entirely opposite—the chimpanzees were willing to "experiment" and do something different from what they were shown; the kids perfectly imitated the original demonstration each time.
The relevant parts of the article text:
Dr. Horner and Dr. Whiten described the way they showed young chimps how to retrieve food from a box.
The box was painted black and had a door on one side and a bolt running across the top. The food was hidden in a tube behind the door. When they showed the chimpanzees how to retrieve the food, the researchers added some unnecessary steps. Before they opened the door, they pulled back the bolt and tapped the top of the box with a stick. Only after they had pushed the bolt back in place did they finally open the door and fish out the food.
Because the chimps could not see inside, they could not tell that the extra steps were unnecessary. As a result, when the chimps were given the box, two-thirds faithfully imitated the scientists to retrieve the food.
The team then used a box with transparent walls and found a strikingly different result. Those chimps could see that the scientists were wasting their time sliding the bolt and tapping the top. None followed suit. They all went straight for the door.
The researchers turned to humans. They showed the transparent box to 16 children from a Scottish nursery school. After putting a sticker in the box, they showed the children how to retrieve it. They included the unnecessary bolt pulling and box tapping.
The scientists placed the sticker back in the box and left the room, telling the children that they could do whatever they thought necessary to retrieve it.
The children could see just as easily as the chimps that it was pointless to slide open the bolt or tap on top of the box. Yet 80 percent did so anyway. "It seemed so spectacular to me," Mr. Lyons said. "It suggested something remarkable was going on."
It was possible, however, that the results might come from a simple desire in the children just to play along.
...snip...
Having watched 100 children, he agrees with Dr. Horner and Dr. Whiten that children really do overimitate. He has found that it is very hard to get children not to.
If they rush through opening a puzzle, they don't skip the extra steps. They just do them all faster. What makes the results even more intriguing is that the children understand the laws of physics well enough to solve the puzzles on their own. Charlotte's box ripping is proof of that.
Mr. Lyons sees his results as evidence that humans are hard-wired to learn by imitation, even when that is clearly not the best way to learn. If he is right, this represents a big evolutionary change from our ape ancestors. Other primates are bad at imitation. When they watch another primate doing something, they seem to focus on what its goals are and ignore its actions.
As human ancestors began to make complicated tools, figuring out goals might not have been good enough anymore. Hominids needed a way to register automatically what other hominids did, even if they didn't understand the intentions behind them. They needed to imitate.
... snip...
In a few years, I plan to explain this experience to Charlotte. I want her to know what I now know. That it's O.K. to lose to the chimps. In fact, it may be what makes us uniquely human.
Just today, I was looking at http://www.amiright.com/misheard/ and http://www.iusedtobelieve.com/music/misheard_lyric s/misheard_lyrics_s1.php, for misheard lyrics. (Believe it or not, I once heard Celine Dion sing "I'm Alive", and I thought she was saying "When you masturbate...", but it turns out she was trying to say "When you bless the day":) )
Will these sites (which only offer one-line "corrections" (but are also very amusing to read)) also be forced to shut down / go to jail?
It's called Precession of the equinoxes. And Wikipedia says it's "approximately 25800 years" (at the moment. One of you jokers may go change it to something else, who knows?;)
But the author of this article, despite looking for top patent holders, still makes snickering remarks about those he found:
Ravi Arimilli is IBM's top patent holder, with more than 300 patents. He's a researcher, based in Austin, who specializes in computer chip innards. Arimilli's most recent patent, issued Nov. 29, is for "Layered local cache with lower level cache optimizing allocation mechanism." He must be great at cocktail parties.
What's with the last sentence? If he's looking for those with a large number of patents, the ones he finds are bound to be from some very specialized field, and the names of the patents will be obscure to everyone else but those in the field. (OK, OK, I'm sorry; my sense of humour has returned, ignore the previous sentence.)
Funnily? I can not remember going over this word in English class.
So the only words that you think exist are the ones you were taught in class? Do you realise that there are a lot more words in English than can be taught in any class?
It's one thing to complain when people mangle existing words, and use them in contexts where they don't apply, or make up sentences with weird grammar or punctuation, because then it gets (slightly) confusing. It makes no sense to object to a perfectly constructed word that is consistent with the way English words are usually formed, and has no chance of misinterpretation whatsoever.
Oh, and FWIW, funnilyisaword.
When somebody enjoys doing something they obviously want to do it more often. The question is just how much do they let that enjoyment interfere with their lives and possibly the lives of others?
Quite true, but in the case of games, addiction is very real. You only have to take the example of the Chinese guy who killed someone over some sword in a game.
... as everyone else is quoting.
Interestingly, as I write this, the fortune (or random quote, or whatever it is called) at the bottom of the slashdot page says:
Life only demands from you the strength you possess. Only one feat is possible -- not to have run away. -- Dag Hammarskjold
This poor rat gave all the strength it possessed, but ran away...
I still don't see why they had to kill it instead of just recapturing it. I mean, after such heroic efforts, it surely deserved better?
What are you talking about? There're hundreds of closed-source apps running on Linux perfectly well --- all of Sun's Java things, the Opera browser....
There is no reason why Microsoft would have to release their source code, or would have trouble making installations.
Apart from what you said, there are several reasons why vandalism on Wikipedia really isn't such an issue:
Nonsense and falsehoods are quickly spotted and fixed back.
If a "hot" article like the one on Kerry during an election is being too frequently edited and fixed back (if there is a "revert war"), the article is locked, and visitors to the page are informed.
Most importantly, there is always the History page for every article. This is in my opinion, Wikipedia's best feature -- if you suspect that a particular page might have false stuff on it, all you have to do is to click "History" at the top of the page, and see what edits have been made to the page lately. I do this for every article; it only takes a couple minutes more, at worst. Looking at the edit history (and comparing different versions) can instantly tell you whether you've landed on the page right during an edit war, show you both sides, show you what was last added or changed, etc.
I mean, if they're not going to return the context, they might as well just return the title and maybe the page-number, no?
Yes, that's what they do. If you search for something and it is in a part of the book that they do not allow access to, you only say a message saying "Sorry, you cannot view this page".
Day 3: Friday
In addition to visiting more camps, I had to attend the two yearly rallies: first the critical dicks march, and later the critical tits bike ride, which was the largest one yet: it went on for 45 minutes. This is actually the first time I've heard men say "Ok, I've seen enough tits for today":-)
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, nice. It says Raman Spectroscopy, but the Ramen Spectroscopy you speak of is quite interesting too :)
;)
(BTW, Raman Spectroscopy is named after Sir C V Raman, who won the Physics Nobel in 1930. One story about him that the Wikipedia article doesn't (yet?) mention is that he had booked his tickets to Stockholm several months before the Nobel prizes were announced! Another that it does mention is that when he was offered a toast, he replied, being a teetotaller, "Sir, you have seen the Raman effect on alcohol; please do not try to see the alcohol effect on Raman."
I agree with "hope for the best" — as the article says, people who expect bad things to happen are just making themselves miserable, without actually gaining anything from it.
I certainly don't agree with "expect the worst", that's exactly what's wrong. One must be prepared for the worst, not expect it. That is, you must think about the worst-case scenario and how to handle it instead of being foolishly optimistic and not worrying about it at all, but that does not mean you must actually believe that the worst-case thing is what will happen. The best state to be in is "I feel everything will turn out well (but if it doesn't, then I'm prepared for that too)."
(And as for "take whatever comes", you don't really have a choice there, do you?
Look at the following two links: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/ThunderbirdNewVersion and http://wiki.ubuntu.com/FirefoxNewVersion.
The page on Thunderbird still refers to 1.5rc1, but I think the same instructions apply (with the obvious changes).
Obligatory quote from I-don't-know-where
However, I have my own doubts about correct this research is -- All that is fine, but any research that doesn't mention porn must be flawed
Here's the first few lines of the automatically generated Microsoft letter:Um, okay, it's not perfect, not everything above applies (and there was some more that I left out), but still, you see the point. Heck, a lot of the stuff in the parent troll about Slashdot applies to it quite well
I just read this somewhere; thought everyone might find it useful --
Go to Tools->Options->OpenOffice.org->Java and uncheck the "Use a Java Runtime Environment". (AFAIK, it doesn't break anything I use.)
You mean you haven't heard of Flashblock? (Install it from here.)
It does exactly what you want—blocks all Flash with a box with a Play button on it, which you can click if you want to allow that Flash object to play.
Yep. I remember reading a Number Theory book long ago that Skewe's number 10^10^10^34 was "the largest number which has ever served any definite purpose in mathematics", but apparently, things have changed since then. The largest meaningful (but useless, as you pointed out) number used is apparently Graham's Number, which has even been listed by the Guinness Book of World Records as such. Tetration is explained here, or quite a lot of notation is explained here.
:)
The best page about large numbers, however, is clearly the one at MROB, beautifully written.
But the amusing thing about this Graham's Number is that it is an upper bound on some quantity, which experts believe is equal to 6. That's right, SIX. So it's not only the largest number ever used; it's also probably the worst upper-bound ever
My favourites from that list:
and oh, lots of others.
Another one of note:
Huh? The article was written by "Suprnova's admin Sloncek". He is the one who came close to being prosecuted, his computers were confiscated, etc. He is the only one who can give an account of the story, and if he choses to say blah blah and blah blah, there is nothing anyone else can do to fill in those details.
Your remarks would make sense if an original news item was dumbed down for the "general public".
If the guy who got the letter from the prosecutor does not wish to quote verbatim from it, or he thinks it is not relevant, why question it? It's probably not relevant anyway, just some law numbers and dates.
He does provide the original letter (in Slovenian), so read it yourself for the gory details. Or, scroll down for helpful translations below.
(Sorry for all the "snip"s; but you never know what sort of people frequent Slashdot!)
Sure, but you can be sure someone is taking games too seriously, when something like this happens. When did trading in games start spilling over to real life and money, BTW?
This of course assumes that DaVinci captured her exact expression... Chances are that the painting just developed that way. /ducks
Ah, Intelligent Design vs Evolution for paintings.
Huh? The fact here is entirely opposite—the chimpanzees were willing to "experiment" and do something different from what they were shown; the kids perfectly imitated the original demonstration each time.
The relevant parts of the article text:
Just today, I was looking at http://www.amiright.com/misheard/ and http://www.iusedtobelieve.com/music/misheard_lyric s/misheard_lyrics_s1.php, for misheard lyrics. (Believe it or not, I once heard Celine Dion sing "I'm Alive", and I thought she was saying "When you masturbate...", but it turns out she was trying to say "When you bless the day" :) )
Will these sites (which only offer one-line "corrections" (but are also very amusing to read)) also be forced to shut down / go to jail?
It's called Precession of the equinoxes. And Wikipedia says it's "approximately 25800 years" (at the moment. One of you jokers may go change it to something else, who knows? ;)
Funnily? I can not remember going over this word in English class.
So the only words that you think exist are the ones you were taught in class? Do you realise that there are a lot more words in English than can be taught in any class?
It's one thing to complain when people mangle existing words, and use them in contexts where they don't apply, or make up sentences with weird grammar or punctuation, because then it gets (slightly) confusing. It makes no sense to object to a perfectly constructed word that is consistent with the way English words are usually formed, and has no chance of misinterpretation whatsoever.
Oh, and FWIW, funnily is a word.
When somebody enjoys doing something they obviously want to do it more often. The question is just how much do they let that enjoyment interfere with their lives and possibly the lives of others?
Quite true, but in the case of games, addiction is very real. You only have to take the example of the Chinese guy who killed someone over some sword in a game.
Interestingly, as I write this, the fortune (or random quote, or whatever it is called) at the bottom of the slashdot page says:
This poor rat gave all the strength it possessed, but ran away...
I still don't see why they had to kill it instead of just recapturing it. I mean, after such heroic efforts, it surely deserved better?
What are you talking about? There're hundreds of closed-source apps running on Linux perfectly well --- all of Sun's Java things, the Opera browser.... There is no reason why Microsoft would have to release their source code, or would have trouble making installations.
I mean, if they're not going to return the context, they might as well just return the title and maybe the page-number, no?
Yes, that's what they do. If you search for something and it is in a part of the book that they do not allow access to, you only say a message saying "Sorry, you cannot view this page".
'Nuff said.