Grimm's Fairy Tales should be banned due to themes of excessive violence, cannabalism, and murder. Listening to or reading these stories can't possibly be good for impressionable young children! Also, The Holy Bible contains depictions of murder, adultery, rape, and incest -- again, definitely not suitable for children. (Similar arguments apply to the Quran, the Talmud, and the Bhagavad Gita.)
If Wikileaks is hosted outside of the US, then I suspect there is very little the US government can do about it, short of calling in an air strike. And while I'd expect GW might have considered that option, I'm pretty sure Obama isn't that stupid.
Runescape filtered all chat, which was both annoying and completely useless, as yes, people did quickly come up with alternate spellings to beat the censor. It would constantly surprise by substituting asterisks in the middle of words where no offense was intended, but it fully displayed phrases like "My balls itch like bloody hell!" You'd think that Jagex, being British, would have thought of those words.
He doesn't shoot random people, he shoots lawyers... in the face... and his popularity goes up when he does! Come on, who amongst us hasn't wanted to take out a shotgun and shoot a lawyer in the face... it couldn't just be me!
but you can make anything with it. That's like saying you can convert any picture to a 15 by 20 pixel JPEG; technically you can, but the usually the result isn't worth looking at. That said, I'm sure a lot of people will send in pr0n to convert into patterns, just to see what it looks like in ultra-low resolution monochrome.
It might be psychologically beneficial to have certain reserved words for expletives that have more emotional impact. For example, when you hit your thumb with a hammer, isn't screaming "FUCK!!!" much more satisfying than uttering "OH, FIDDLESTICKS!!!"
Champions Online would let my daughter create a cat themed hero, but wouldn't let her name it "Pussy Cat"... I haven't tried naming a character "Dick Cheney" yet.
All this is necessary because kids never hang out with older kids in REAL LIFE and hear those words from them! How about just teaching your kids what is and isn't appropriate -- eventually they are going to have to learn to cope with these bad influences anyway.
I prefer to think we're all alright, just different. Diversity is a survival factor; if everybody had the same aptitudes, we would have died out as a species long ago. If somebody is good at highly structured, repetitive tasks, then by all means, put them to work doing highly structured, repetitive tasks. Don't try to make them into something their not just to fit your preconceived notions of "normal".
I am not sure yet if I should label him Please don't. I'm all about expanding the definition of "normal"; nobody is really average. Unfortunately, the school system is all about categorizing and labeling kids, when it is perfectly normal to learn some things faster and other things slower than your peers. If you can, please try to home school your child; if he doesn't fit the mold, he won't achieve his full potential in the school system.
Cool... 5 year olds are perfectly capable of learning set theory, and boolean algebra (which is just a subset of set theory) because these areas don't have the mathematically prerequisites that most mathematics does. If you've got some spare time, you should really start teaching him!
Spoken like a true socially impaired outsider... don't you ever use jargon that is only understood by your small clique of people, and not understood by anyone else? Every programmer and engineer I know of does (including myself). Human beings are social animals and are extremely socially competitive, especially the females.
Most of them are better than average people. What does "better" mean? In my view, nobody is really smarter than anybody else, people just specialize in different aptitudes. Einstein was a specialist at focusing on just one thing for days at a time, to the exclusion of everything else, and yet he is regarded as the epitome of genius. Your son is better than his peers at some tasks, worse than his peers at others. That doesn't make him "better than average people", that makes him "normal".
...autistics have a talent for spotting imperfections, and thrive on predictable, monotonous work. Great... so then why doesn't the TSA hire them to monitor the X-ray machines?
The scientific method says you follow the data wherever it leads you, not start out with a preconceived notion of what the results should be then throw out data that doesn't fit your preconceived notions and try to squelch any opposing opinions. I see this more as an object lesson in how NOT to do science. They obviously had an agenda, and they threw out raw data, keeping only their "massaged" data. All of which makes their conclusions suspect, even if they are correct. If you want to do good science that makes a difference, DON'T do shit that way! By doing so, they have hurt the very agenda they were trying to advance.
I would feel abused if AT&T promised unlimited (without restriction) bandwidth and then decided that they couldn't meet this promise and cut or changed the terms of the agreement. "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further!" Perhaps there is a reason why people refer to the AT&T logo as "the death star"!
In reality, I think every ISP that advertises "unlimited" is being dishonest -- especially if it is providing "shared" bandwidth. My point was that some people are going to "abuse" the service and try to do things like run a web server on their phone (or much more likely, tether it to a PC). The data transport provider needs to adopt some form of tiered pricing to account for this, otherwise the greedy few run up the costs for everybody. Yes, there are technological solutions that can help alleviate the problem of bandwidth hogs. Hughesnet satellite internet used to throttle you back to what seemed like 20Kbits/s for 24 hours if you downloaded more than 3GBytes in a 24 hour period; that made the connection unusable for the purposes I wanted a connection for in the first place! But it was still better than charging per-byte fees for any data over the limit. Obviously yes, bandwidth should be doled out in a round-robin fashion so that those who place a higher demand get slower response. But I still think you need to have some kind of economic penalty to your highest bandwidth users to encourage good stewardship of the shared bandwidth.
I would argue that being able to review the source code and then recompile everything from scratch means that it IS more safe -- somebody somewhere will eventually look at the code close enough to discover malfeasance and alert everyone else, just like in this case. I'll grant you that if you are running precompiled executables from untrusted sources, you are not safe regardless of what operating system you are running.
I keep predicting some sort of per-byte fees are inevitable, and people keep arguing with me. "It's not the tragedy of the commons because they can always build more bandwidth." No, wireless bandwidth is regulated by the FCC and finite. Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else's user experience is beyond me. Sure, AT&T could build a better 3G network, but if you expect that grandma (that only uses a data connection to check her email once a day) should be subsidizing your addiction to streaming porn videos, you are one selfish son of a bitch.
I prefer to believe that the screensaver on the computer running the matrix just kicked in accidentally. Apparently "God" hadn't moved the mouse for too long.
How was this modded "insightful" instead of "funny"? A 35 foot test only substitutes for greater height tests if in falling from a greater height, the helicopter pauses at 35 feet before continuing on to it's doom... as far as 33 mph, it's possible they accelerated it horizontally before they dropped it; they're simulating an auto-rotating 'copter coming in hard, not a 'copter falling from the sky like a brick.
Lately I've been wondering how worthwhile attempts to e.g. stop climate change are when, if the Bible is right, we'll hit Armageddon in only a couple of decades and then all of humanity's environmental and technological problems may well be moot.
Hey, it makes about as much sense as depending on "the Singularity"!
Slashdot Mirror
First, assume you have a magnetic monopole. From there, the math is easy.
Grimm's Fairy Tales should be banned due to themes of excessive violence, cannabalism, and murder. Listening to or reading these stories can't possibly be good for impressionable young children! Also, The Holy Bible contains depictions of murder, adultery, rape, and incest -- again, definitely not suitable for children. (Similar arguments apply to the Quran, the Talmud, and the Bhagavad Gita.)
If Wikileaks is hosted outside of the US, then I suspect there is very little the US government can do about it, short of calling in an air strike. And while I'd expect GW might have considered that option, I'm pretty sure Obama isn't that stupid.
Runescape filtered all chat, which was both annoying and completely useless, as yes, people did quickly come up with alternate spellings to beat the censor. It would constantly surprise by substituting asterisks in the middle of words where no offense was intended, but it fully displayed phrases like "My balls itch like bloody hell!" You'd think that Jagex, being British, would have thought of those words.
"Pu55y Cat" didn't work (I tried), so I suspect "Vag1na Cat" wouldn't work either.
He doesn't shoot random people, he shoots lawyers... in the face... and his popularity goes up when he does! Come on, who amongst us hasn't wanted to take out a shotgun and shoot a lawyer in the face... it couldn't just be me!
but you can make anything with it. That's like saying you can convert any picture to a 15 by 20 pixel JPEG; technically you can, but the usually the result isn't worth looking at. That said, I'm sure a lot of people will send in pr0n to convert into patterns, just to see what it looks like in ultra-low resolution monochrome.
It might be psychologically beneficial to have certain reserved words for expletives that have more emotional impact. For example, when you hit your thumb with a hammer, isn't screaming "FUCK!!!" much more satisfying than uttering "OH, FIDDLESTICKS!!!"
Champions Online would let my daughter create a cat themed hero, but wouldn't let her name it "Pussy Cat"... I haven't tried naming a character "Dick Cheney" yet.
All this is necessary because kids never hang out with older kids in REAL LIFE and hear those words from them! How about just teaching your kids what is and isn't appropriate -- eventually they are going to have to learn to cope with these bad influences anyway.
I prefer to think we're all alright, just different. Diversity is a survival factor; if everybody had the same aptitudes, we would have died out as a species long ago. If somebody is good at highly structured, repetitive tasks, then by all means, put them to work doing highly structured, repetitive tasks. Don't try to make them into something their not just to fit your preconceived notions of "normal".
I am not sure yet if I should label him Please don't. I'm all about expanding the definition of "normal"; nobody is really average. Unfortunately, the school system is all about categorizing and labeling kids, when it is perfectly normal to learn some things faster and other things slower than your peers. If you can, please try to home school your child; if he doesn't fit the mold, he won't achieve his full potential in the school system.
Cool... 5 year olds are perfectly capable of learning set theory, and boolean algebra (which is just a subset of set theory) because these areas don't have the mathematically prerequisites that most mathematics does. If you've got some spare time, you should really start teaching him!
Spoken like a true socially impaired outsider... don't you ever use jargon that is only understood by your small clique of people, and not understood by anyone else? Every programmer and engineer I know of does (including myself). Human beings are social animals and are extremely socially competitive, especially the females.
Most of them are better than average people. What does "better" mean? In my view, nobody is really smarter than anybody else, people just specialize in different aptitudes. Einstein was a specialist at focusing on just one thing for days at a time, to the exclusion of everything else, and yet he is regarded as the epitome of genius. Your son is better than his peers at some tasks, worse than his peers at others. That doesn't make him "better than average people", that makes him "normal".
...autistics have a talent for spotting imperfections, and thrive on predictable, monotonous work. Great... so then why doesn't the TSA hire them to monitor the X-ray machines?
The scientific method says you follow the data wherever it leads you, not start out with a preconceived notion of what the results should be then throw out data that doesn't fit your preconceived notions and try to squelch any opposing opinions. I see this more as an object lesson in how NOT to do science. They obviously had an agenda, and they threw out raw data, keeping only their "massaged" data. All of which makes their conclusions suspect, even if they are correct. If you want to do good science that makes a difference, DON'T do shit that way! By doing so, they have hurt the very agenda they were trying to advance.
What if, in order to pay the increased costs of her data service, grandma is forced to appear in you pr0n? Then how would you feel about it?
I would feel abused if AT&T promised unlimited (without restriction) bandwidth and then decided that they couldn't meet this promise and cut or changed the terms of the agreement. "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further!" Perhaps there is a reason why people refer to the AT&T logo as "the death star"!
In reality, I think every ISP that advertises "unlimited" is being dishonest -- especially if it is providing "shared" bandwidth. My point was that some people are going to "abuse" the service and try to do things like run a web server on their phone (or much more likely, tether it to a PC). The data transport provider needs to adopt some form of tiered pricing to account for this, otherwise the greedy few run up the costs for everybody. Yes, there are technological solutions that can help alleviate the problem of bandwidth hogs. Hughesnet satellite internet used to throttle you back to what seemed like 20Kbits/s for 24 hours if you downloaded more than 3GBytes in a 24 hour period; that made the connection unusable for the purposes I wanted a connection for in the first place! But it was still better than charging per-byte fees for any data over the limit. Obviously yes, bandwidth should be doled out in a round-robin fashion so that those who place a higher demand get slower response. But I still think you need to have some kind of economic penalty to your highest bandwidth users to encourage good stewardship of the shared bandwidth.
I would argue that being able to review the source code and then recompile everything from scratch means that it IS more safe -- somebody somewhere will eventually look at the code close enough to discover malfeasance and alert everyone else, just like in this case. I'll grant you that if you are running precompiled executables from untrusted sources, you are not safe regardless of what operating system you are running.
I keep predicting some sort of per-byte fees are inevitable, and people keep arguing with me. "It's not the tragedy of the commons because they can always build more bandwidth." No, wireless bandwidth is regulated by the FCC and finite. Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else's user experience is beyond me. Sure, AT&T could build a better 3G network, but if you expect that grandma (that only uses a data connection to check her email once a day) should be subsidizing your addiction to streaming porn videos, you are one selfish son of a bitch.
I prefer to believe that the screensaver on the computer running the matrix just kicked in accidentally. Apparently "God" hadn't moved the mouse for too long.
How was this modded "insightful" instead of "funny"? A 35 foot test only substitutes for greater height tests if in falling from a greater height, the helicopter pauses at 35 feet before continuing on to it's doom... as far as 33 mph, it's possible they accelerated it horizontally before they dropped it; they're simulating an auto-rotating 'copter coming in hard, not a 'copter falling from the sky like a brick.
Lately I've been wondering how worthwhile attempts to e.g. stop climate change are when, if the Bible is right, we'll hit Armageddon in only a couple of decades and then all of humanity's environmental and technological problems may well be moot.
Hey, it makes about as much sense as depending on "the Singularity"!
You should never anthropomorphize data -- it hates it when you do that!