I think the guy at the front who has been there for 48 hours is probably going to figure out your dastardly scheme and react in an unpleasant way. It would probably be smarter to shoot for a higher number where the people are more passive.
But there will always be a small minority group of classical gamers who will act akin to Shakespeare lovers. Imagine 100 years from now people are lying back in their Matrix-style brain boxes chatting about the beautiful simplicity of Pac-Man.
Imagine the professors of late 20th century gaming who fight with the professors of early 21st century gaming about how the 21st century was just a dumping ground for mindless copies of the true classics. Mario Tennis is after all just a graphical update for Pong. Fallout 3 is really just a graphical update for Bezerk.
Imagine the angry depressed loners with digital fingernails and LED hair who fight about how ET for Atari was the best game of all time.
And, of course, there will be people like me who still write text adventures for the yearly ifcomp. (If you've forgotten, check out ifcomp.org. This year's contest ends on the 15th of November!)
If I actually saw those things in person then I would believe that something was going on worthy of exploration. As it stands all I see are unreliable words in a book written by a bunch of crazies from thousands of years ago.
I see no reason whatsoever to believe that any of those things happened. I do not believe he walked on water or turned water into wine or came back from the dead or flew up into the sky.
I believe that a charismatic guy like David Koresh honestly believed he was the son of god and went around preaching peace and love.
I believe that others decided that his story needed to be buffed up a bit so they added all the miracle nonsense. When Jesus was murdered they invented the story about being brought back from the dead. Of course, he had to ascend into heaven in the story because otherwise people would ask where the heck Jesus was hanging out if he was still alive.
Seriously, the bible has more holes in it then the Mormon Joseph Smith stories. Yet you decide to accept them rather than honoring the truly good person who Jesus probably was. He may have been a good man, but he was not the son of god.
The problem here is that people rarely define "God" before trying to prove its existence. If we used "God" in the way that they used it in ancient Greece then any being capable of that level of power really is a god. Proving that one has great power is not hard.
The difference between a god and God would presumably have something to do with whether or not they were the one who created the universe. I agree that there probably isn't a way to prove that.
In short, whether or not a being can be proven to be God is entirely dependant on what the prerequisites for being God are.
Of course, if one uses "God" to refer to the god of a specific human religion then that one is easy. All those religions were pretty obviously made up by ancient people either as a method of control over an uneducated populace or out of craziness. So, the answer to "Is that being the god of religion X." will always be "no".
There are things in my head which I have never uttered aloud. If anyone can tell me what those things are then they are one of the following: - a very good guesser - an alien with technology which uses nanobots to walk through my mind and read my thoughts - an omniscient being (and I don't see how a being can be omniscient without being a God who can look directly at all values in the RAM of the universe). - a time traveller who tortured me in the future to get that information and then travelled back in time to make a point about religion on slashdot.
It wouldn't be proof, but it'd narrow the field of candidates as to what the being is. A few other tests (like proving omnicient power by altering universal constants) would narrow the field further.
And while there's always the assumption that people will "settle down" when they get older, I think this trend will only continue as today's file sharers grow older.
That certainly seems likely to me. When I was a kid, videogames were a thing that was done mostly by children. These days the average gamer is over 30 years old. I fully expect that number to continue treding upward as I age until the rate of videogame playing matches the current spread of TV watching among all age groups.
IPv4 has been broken from the start. Well, duh, do you think IPv6 is any less flawed? There's still a limit, who cares if it's 10 or 10,000 years in the future because it's going to have to be dealt with at some point!
That's silly. Flaws are only important when they start causing problems or reach a point where there is a huge potential to cause problems.
If a flaw is 10,000 years in the future then the proper time to deal with the flaw is either right now (if the problem can reasonably fixed permanently) or 10,000 - X years from now where X is the amount of time it will take to fix the problem plus a reasonable buffer for crazy things happening.
Come on now. Obviously, at the time of those launches there was a non-zero chance of those rockets failing. The OP claimed that the chance was 1/6 for every rocket. I'd like to know where that number came from because, as I said, it seems like it should be lower given 11 successful manned launches and no manned launch failures.
That can't be right. A 1/6 chance to fail is a 5/6 chance to succeed. Wikipedia indicates 11 manned launches. (5/6)^11=0.13
If 1/6 chance is correct then there was only a 0.13 chance that all those launches succeeded. I find it hard to believe that we were really that lucky. The chance of failure had to have been much lower.
Why was that comment modded insightful? There is truth in it, but there is also truth in the statement "There's a difference between being presentable and needing to loosen the fuck up.".
At first I thought this was bad. Then I realized that the only women not caught by that net would be the intelligent kickass women that I find most interesting and attractive.
For the good of the children, filtering the over emotional sorts of women out of the gene pool will create a better class of human.
Sadly, this won't work for men. Few men get into relationships in order to have emotional conversations about the trivialities of life.
Furthermore, an ultra realistic RealDoll wouldn't be good. It'd probably catch much too large a segment of the male population (nearly 100%).
Cloners are working on that. Women will use a home pregnancy kit to withdraw some genetic material. Drop it in the mail netflix-style and get a turkey baster full of pregnancy in the mail 2 weeks later.
We men need to worry about this. Until we get iron wombs, men need women to have kids a lot more than women need men.
The moral of this story is that we need to funnel research money into iron womb construction and make sure that iron wombs are made first before cloners succeed with humans.
I can see it now. Every morning I'd wake up, kiss my RealDoll VR system on the cheek, press the button to water my RealPlants, plug in the RealDog, and make sure the nutrient feeder is full on the RealWomb.
The tutorials in Chessmaster aren't tedium. At least, I didn't think they were. They don't involve any sort of massive memorization.
Really, all you need to do to reach a basic competency (say 1000 FIDE) is to learn how to deploy your pieces, learn the basics about how to checkmate with various pieces, then just play lots of games against a computer opponent who is just slightly better than you.
I really like the Chessmaster opponents. You can select opponents based on their score and move up the ladder as you learn how to play.
You don't need to memorize 10 moves deep in order to enjoy the game.
Playing chess against even a modest PC is no fun any more. Anybody less than a grand master will be destroyed.
Chessmaster lets you select the strength of the player that you are playing against. Other chess games probably have the same capability.
Yes, chess is very boring when it's impossible to win. But when I play Chessmaster I always select an opponent who is just slightly better than me. I often lose but I feel really good when I win.
Regarding Go, some people just don't like the game. I sort of enjoy it, but I like Chess a lot more.
The primary problem is that it's a lot harder to convince people to allow speech than it is to convince people to ban speech. Give people an inch and they'll ban everything that they don't like.
Myself, I always default to believing that speech should be free unless it's completely clear that the damage caused by the speech cannot be counteracted with more free speech.
On a related note, I wish that no one was allowed to say anything on TV without first taking a legal oath that what they say is true under penalty of perjury. (And they would further be prevented from adding "I think" or any other prevarications to their talk.) The Republican party would essentially be barred from advertising in any way.
Nevertheless, would I ever want to disallow their hateful damaging lies by actually passing a law that made it illegal for them to spew their economy and world damaging nonsense?
No. And honestly, it's a LOT harder for me to say that than it is for me to stick up for neo nazis or other hate groups. That's because, unlike neo nazis, the Republicans are actually successful with their hate speech. Seriously, they actually have people convinced they are a party of small government. (biggest lie ever)
Regarding the extended period of familiarity, I've found that I'm less and less aware of effects in movies. I used to instantly see something as an effect. Now it's entirely possible for me to watch an effects movie without even thinking that something is fake.
I'm sure the same thing is happening to me regarding animated actors. The more uncanny valley I see in video games, the less unusual the valley seems.
I think it's conceivable that the valley could close up without any additional advanced being made. I might just get used to it and not see it as abnormal.
It's like fake boobs. The more women there are who have fake boobs, the less likely I am to even think that they might have fake boobs.
Really? I doubt I would have known she wasn't real if I hadn't know about it ahead of time. Either you have a heightened sense of revulsion for the almost human or I am totally insensitive to what humans look like.
If the submitter wants to keep their job without creating patents then it's not a problem. Just point out prior art as others have mentioned already. If they file anyway then they will be committing an illegal act if they hide the prior art that you include.
The biggest problem for me with patenting one's work at a company is that it means you can never again use the idea you came up with if you move to another company. That's bullshit.
That's why I only ever use open source libraries and free or cheap tools at work. If I use an expensive tool or costly library then I will be learning to use something that is unavailable to me outside of work.
Is that "4 out of 5" as a synonym for "most" or is that a real statistic?
If it's real then I'm surprised that 1 out of 5 times it's actually real. That seems awfully high. I did a quick search and although
http://www.policemag.com/Articles/2008/06/False-Burglar-Alarms.aspx indicates that it's a problem, it doesn't give any numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the guy at the front who has been there for 48 hours is probably going to figure out your dastardly scheme and react in an unpleasant way. It would probably be smarter to shoot for a higher number where the people are more passive.
But there will always be a small minority group of classical gamers who will act akin to Shakespeare lovers. Imagine 100 years from now people are lying back in their Matrix-style brain boxes chatting about the beautiful simplicity of Pac-Man.
Imagine the professors of late 20th century gaming who fight with the professors of early 21st century gaming about how the 21st century was just a dumping ground for mindless copies of the true classics. Mario Tennis is after all just a graphical update for Pong. Fallout 3 is really just a graphical update for Bezerk.
Imagine the angry depressed loners with digital fingernails and LED hair who fight about how ET for Atari was the best game of all time.
And, of course, there will be people like me who still write text adventures for the yearly ifcomp. (If you've forgotten, check out ifcomp.org. This year's contest ends on the 15th of November!)
If I actually saw those things in person then I would believe that something was going on worthy of exploration. As it stands all I see are unreliable words in a book written by a bunch of crazies from thousands of years ago.
I see no reason whatsoever to believe that any of those things happened. I do not believe he walked on water or turned water into wine or came back from the dead or flew up into the sky.
I believe that a charismatic guy like David Koresh honestly believed he was the son of god and went around preaching peace and love.
I believe that others decided that his story needed to be buffed up a bit so they added all the miracle nonsense. When Jesus was murdered they invented the story about being brought back from the dead. Of course, he had to ascend into heaven in the story because otherwise people would ask where the heck Jesus was hanging out if he was still alive.
Seriously, the bible has more holes in it then the Mormon Joseph Smith stories. Yet you decide to accept them rather than honoring the truly good person who Jesus probably was. He may have been a good man, but he was not the son of god.
The problem here is that people rarely define "God" before trying to prove its existence. If we used "God" in the way that they used it in ancient Greece then any being capable of that level of power really is a god. Proving that one has great power is not hard.
The difference between a god and God would presumably have something to do with whether or not they were the one who created the universe. I agree that there probably isn't a way to prove that.
In short, whether or not a being can be proven to be God is entirely dependant on what the prerequisites for being God are.
Of course, if one uses "God" to refer to the god of a specific human religion then that one is easy. All those religions were pretty obviously made up by ancient people either as a method of control over an uneducated populace or out of craziness. So, the answer to "Is that being the god of religion X." will always be "no".
There are things in my head which I have never uttered aloud. If anyone can tell me what those things are then they are one of the following:
- a very good guesser
- an alien with technology which uses nanobots to walk through my mind and read my thoughts
- an omniscient being (and I don't see how a being can be omniscient without being a God who can look directly at all values in the RAM of the universe).
- a time traveller who tortured me in the future to get that information and then travelled back in time to make a point about religion on slashdot.
It wouldn't be proof, but it'd narrow the field of candidates as to what the being is. A few other tests (like proving omnicient power by altering universal constants) would narrow the field further.
That certainly seems likely to me. When I was a kid, videogames were a thing that was done mostly by children. These days the average gamer is over 30 years old. I fully expect that number to continue treding upward as I age until the rate of videogame playing matches the current spread of TV watching among all age groups.
That's silly. Flaws are only important when they start causing problems or reach a point where there is a huge potential to cause problems.
If a flaw is 10,000 years in the future then the proper time to deal with the flaw is either right now (if the problem can reasonably fixed permanently) or 10,000 - X years from now where X is the amount of time it will take to fix the problem plus a reasonable buffer for crazy things happening.
Come on now. Obviously, at the time of those launches there was a non-zero chance of those rockets failing. The OP claimed that the chance was 1/6 for every rocket. I'd like to know where that number came from because, as I said, it seems like it should be lower given 11 successful manned launches and no manned launch failures.
That can't be right. A 1/6 chance to fail is a 5/6 chance to succeed. Wikipedia indicates 11 manned launches. (5/6)^11=0.13
If 1/6 chance is correct then there was only a 0.13 chance that all those launches succeeded. I find it hard to believe that we were really that lucky. The chance of failure had to have been much lower.
Why was that comment modded insightful? There is truth in it, but there is also truth in the statement "There's a difference between being presentable and needing to loosen the fuck up.".
So which do you think is worse, neo-con or neo-com?
When I read the title "FBI Warns of Sweeping Global Threat To US Cybersecurity" my first thought was "The FBI is complaining about the NSA?".
At first I thought this was bad. Then I realized that the only women not caught by that net would be the intelligent kickass women that I find most interesting and attractive.
For the good of the children, filtering the over emotional sorts of women out of the gene pool will create a better class of human.
Sadly, this won't work for men. Few men get into relationships in order to have emotional conversations about the trivialities of life.
Furthermore, an ultra realistic RealDoll wouldn't be good. It'd probably catch much too large a segment of the male population (nearly 100%).
Cloners are working on that. Women will use a home pregnancy kit to withdraw some genetic material. Drop it in the mail netflix-style and get a turkey baster full of pregnancy in the mail 2 weeks later.
We men need to worry about this. Until we get iron wombs, men need women to have kids a lot more than women need men.
The moral of this story is that we need to funnel research money into iron womb construction and make sure that iron wombs are made first before cloners succeed with humans.
I can see it now. Every morning I'd wake up, kiss my RealDoll VR system on the cheek, press the button to water my RealPlants, plug in the RealDog, and make sure the nutrient feeder is full on the RealWomb.
The tutorials in Chessmaster aren't tedium. At least, I didn't think they were. They don't involve any sort of massive memorization.
Really, all you need to do to reach a basic competency (say 1000 FIDE) is to learn how to deploy your pieces, learn the basics about how to checkmate with various pieces, then just play lots of games against a computer opponent who is just slightly better than you.
I really like the Chessmaster opponents. You can select opponents based on their score and move up the ladder as you learn how to play.
You don't need to memorize 10 moves deep in order to enjoy the game.
Chessmaster lets you select the strength of the player that you are playing against. Other chess games probably have the same capability.
Yes, chess is very boring when it's impossible to win. But when I play Chessmaster I always select an opponent who is just slightly better than me. I often lose but I feel really good when I win.
Regarding Go, some people just don't like the game. I sort of enjoy it, but I like Chess a lot more.
The primary problem is that it's a lot harder to convince people to allow speech than it is to convince people to ban speech. Give people an inch and they'll ban everything that they don't like.
Myself, I always default to believing that speech should be free unless it's completely clear that the damage caused by the speech cannot be counteracted with more free speech.
On a related note, I wish that no one was allowed to say anything on TV without first taking a legal oath that what they say is true under penalty of perjury. (And they would further be prevented from adding "I think" or any other prevarications to their talk.) The Republican party would essentially be barred from advertising in any way.
Nevertheless, would I ever want to disallow their hateful damaging lies by actually passing a law that made it illegal for them to spew their economy and world damaging nonsense?
No. And honestly, it's a LOT harder for me to say that than it is for me to stick up for neo nazis or other hate groups. That's because, unlike neo nazis, the Republicans are actually successful with their hate speech. Seriously, they actually have people convinced they are a party of small government. (biggest lie ever)
But, I still want it all protected.
Exactly! Who here can honestly say that a pasty faced old person with an AK-47 doesn't look awesome?
That's correct. The only requirement is that you be best buddies with the president and promise to ignore the constitution when it gets in the way.
The jocks from your school were clearly superior to the ones from my school.
It looks real to me. I'll bet you wouldn't even be able to tell if you didn't know bout it ahead of time.
Regarding the extended period of familiarity, I've found that I'm less and less aware of effects in movies. I used to instantly see something as an effect. Now it's entirely possible for me to watch an effects movie without even thinking that something is fake.
I'm sure the same thing is happening to me regarding animated actors. The more uncanny valley I see in video games, the less unusual the valley seems.
I think it's conceivable that the valley could close up without any additional advanced being made. I might just get used to it and not see it as abnormal.
It's like fake boobs. The more women there are who have fake boobs, the less likely I am to even think that they might have fake boobs.
Really? I doubt I would have known she wasn't real if I hadn't know about it ahead of time. Either you have a heightened sense of revulsion for the almost human or I am totally insensitive to what humans look like.
If the submitter wants to keep their job without creating patents then it's not a problem. Just point out prior art as others have mentioned already. If they file anyway then they will be committing an illegal act if they hide the prior art that you include.
The biggest problem for me with patenting one's work at a company is that it means you can never again use the idea you came up with if you move to another company. That's bullshit.
That's why I only ever use open source libraries and free or cheap tools at work. If I use an expensive tool or costly library then I will be learning to use something that is unavailable to me outside of work.
Is that "4 out of 5" as a synonym for "most" or is that a real statistic?
If it's real then I'm surprised that 1 out of 5 times it's actually real. That seems awfully high. I did a quick search and although
http://www.policemag.com/Articles/2008/06/False-Burglar-Alarms.aspx
indicates that it's a problem, it doesn't give any numbers.