From the photos, I'd say that the Japanese one looks more life-like, but that could just be because of the close-up on the Korean one.
Also, I think they both count as androids simply because they look (at least semi-convincingly) human, rather than anything really technically sophisticated. Check what Answers.com has to say:
This one's old, but the site below reviews a book called "The Legend of Rah and the Muggles." The book was written by Nancy K. Stouffer, who decided to sue J.K. Rowlings for the use of the word "muggle" and for supposedly taking similar storytelling elements of writing, too. Hah!
Read it and cringe along with the reviewer. The part about the treatment of burns by the book's characters gave me goosebumps (you have to read it to believe it).
http://www.magespace.net/mugrev.html
Maybe you should learn how to read stuff beforehand. Notice the word "british" for grandparent AC and, if you go up a bit, you'll find that RDW came back to say:
"I've just found that this seems to be limited to searches from a UK IP address. When I run the search via VNC from a browser running on a remote system in Italy, I get the same hits as general_re. With the UK search, the next few hits are for UK double glazing companies (!) and a UK poetry workshop site (www.windowsproject.demon.co.uk)."
I agree with you Pneuma. Over at Mozillazine, the standard reply to anyone who posts saying/threatening that (s)he'll switch back to IE (or go to Opera) is "Goodbye:) Nice to have known ya."
The extension in question (not yours) was already compatible and available for 1.5. The problem was that the maxversion was not written according to the guidelines provided (nothing to do with testing, since that part of the process was already done). The mistake in the maxversion labeling caused Firefox 1.5.0.1 to think that the extension was incompatible (hey, it's just reading what was provided by the extension author).
The problem isn't that the extension is incompatible, but that the extension creator(s) didn't bother to follow the guidelines provided for compatibility version labeling. The security update isn't big enough to compromise the functioning of extensions. The Nightly Tester Tools extension easily does the maxversion bumping that you want until the extension author(s) realize that they had ignored the guidelines.
I think that because we are using advanced forms of technology to send information, we feel the need to make things develop more quickly.
Exactly! I once got into a semi-flame war with someone on LiveJournal (*can already hear the hissing from the majority of/.ers*) over something the other person posted in her(I'm assuming female) public LJ. The post angered me and I left a comment telling her how wrong I thought she was. This angered her and she replied back with some accusations/assumptions of what my political mentality was and demanded that I explain myself because she saw nothing wrong with her post.
Well, after taking a day to think out my argument, I posted back with indignance dripping from every word that I had typed, explaining to her, point by point, what had been wrong with her post(s).
Three days went by (there was a weekend) before she replied with a somewhat calmer, but nonetheless ticked-off reply to my previous reply. There were some points that I disagreed with completely, but within that reply I found a nugget of logic that made me go back to her original post and notice my error in interpretation. Ouch.
However, this deflated my prior anger to the original post and left me with a nice feeling of relief. Some other things came up in real-life and by the time I got some time to reply (which was about five days later), I had gotten over almost all of my knee-jerk anger over her last reply.
I calmly typed up a reply in which I 1) admitted my mistake, 2) told her how relieved I was to be released from my anger, 3) thanked her for her last reply, and 4) apologized. I also made a note that I was not being sarcastic about my reply (if I was, it fails as satire). Oh, and 5) pointed out a mistake in one of her previous arguments but indicated that I didn't want to really argue about it any further.
Two days later I got a reply from her. No anger, no name-calling, nothing. Just an honest reply from her thanking me for attempting to defend my opinions rather than just leaving a flame and disappearing. The really nice part was that she apologized to me for making the accusations/assumptions concerning my political mentality. It seems that the few days she took in typing out her prior reply had helped her put her words in perspective, which in turn had given me more insight into what she had really meant before.
All in all, things ended quite well (I have a much better opinion of this person now). It's amazing how taking some time to think things through rather than letting the emotion of the moment dictate your words can change how people can interact over the net.
I recognize that this is simply a preference (or rather, just which kind of browsing habit you tend to do more) and I do see why your (Opera's) way is good sometimes (but it's definitely not good for when I want to open multiple links in tabs at once and then go through them one by one).
But then I think, "Can't you accomplish the exact same thing by just opening the link in the same tab and then hitting the back button (or gesturing back) once you're done?" I feel that there may be something I'm missing here, but I can't come up with why it would be any different.
Ooooh! I'd better try out those buttons when I get home. (Why can't that page be easier to find?)
I'm a Firefox user (and love it!) but I do recognize that Opera is also a good browser. It's just that things like what the grandparent mentioned (especially with the diffculty of finding the pref/method) has been turning me off of Opera and back to Firefox before I could even get to the juicy bits.
Also, while I'm on the subject, why is it not possible for me to place any buttons into the menu toolbar (the one with "File, Edit, View, etc.")? Firefox allows me to do this, and it seems stupid to leave such a large empty space there. It might have made sense back when ads occupied that spot, but I don't see why it is still that way now (Opera version 8.51).
In the second movie, didn't Andy's mom say that Woody was a family heirloom? In other words, Woody is older than Andy (especially judging by the old TV show he had). Wouldn't this mean that it's possible that at least Woody would be passed on to the next generation of the family (if not Andy's kid, maybe a younger relative)?
That actually brings up an idea. How about the story of Woody's past (from when he was bought to when he was passed into Andy's care)? Don't know how they would explain Woody's amnesia, though. It's not worth making it into a full-blown theatre movie, but a direct-to-DVD movie may be feasible.
I did a bit more search into who these "scientists that wrote the text books to support Darwin's evolution" you were talking about were. Guess what I find? This:
I must have missed all those earlier books/articles that these particular scientists wrote supporting the theory of evolution, but I'm pretty sure they didn't write THE textbooks for the subject.
I'm also pretty sure that you (LovedByGod) won't be able to give me (valid) cited evidence to the contrary. And even if you try, I'm also sure I (or someone else) will point out a major flaw in the evidence.
Good Day,
Monika
P.S. How do you explain viruses (which don't have DNA)?
I'm a Firefox user, but have Opera installed as something to play around with when I'm in the mood to explore its various functionalities. It may be that I'm too used to Firefox, but there's something about the way Opera displays its options that annoys me.
I can tell it's a great browser, though, so if someone doesn't like Firefox (for a reason that can't be fixed by tweaking/extension) I refer them over to Opera.
Anyway, I frequently visit Mozillazine, so one day I decided to see what gets talked about in the Opera forums. After a bit of reading, I decided to search for threads/posts that mentioned Firefox. The majority of the threads turned out to be the pinings for the addition of the AdBlock extension to Opera.
If Opera were to get the functionality of this extension, Firefox user base would drop dramatically.
Seriously, other than that it's integrated into the Options window, TBP has nothing over Tab Mix Plus. The only reason it's so 'popular' despite its 3-star rating is because it happens to have a cozy spot on the main extensions page where it gets the most exposure to those who haven't experienced better.
Nevermind, you're correct with 97-0-1-0-2 and 97-0-1-2-0. The unexplained (read: assumed by the smart ones) bits threw me off on the logic. But there's a reason why I don't accept 98-0-1-0-1 as an answer.
The following is my attempt to have it make sense to even laypeople like me.
Working backwards from pirates #4 and 5:
No matter what #4 says, #5 will always vote NO because he will receive everything (50% or more rule). Thus, #4 wants to avoid this scenario.
[#5 = 100]
Pirates #3, 4, and 5:
#3, knowing that #4 will vote YES no matter what to stay alive, keeps all 100 pieces to himself since the vote will be, #3&4 = YES, #5 = NO.
[#3 = 100, #4 = 0, #5 = 0]
Pirates #2, 3, 4, and 5:
Knowing that the above will happen if #3 gets his way, #2 gives one gold piece each to #4 and #5. Since #4 and #5 want to get at least something, they will both vote YES. So the vote will be #2&4&5 = YES, #3 = NO.
[#2 = 98, #3 = 0, #4 = 1, #5 = 1]
Pirates #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5:
Now things get interesting. #1 must get three votes (himself and two more) to survive. Given the above, #2 will always vote NO. To ensure the other votes, #1 will only have to give one piece of gold more than what the above scenario will provide to two others. Since he only needs two more votes, one piece will be given to #3 (to save on cost) and one more piece to either #4 or #5 (no need for both). So the vote will be #1 = YES, #2 = NO, #3 = YES, #4 = YES/NO, #5 = NO/YES.
[#1 = 97, #2 = 0, #3 = 1, #4 = 2 or 0, #5 = 0 or 2]
98-0-1-0-1 (or 98-0-1-1-0) will not work because neither #4 nor #5 will be given a reason to vote YES. Remember, pirates will only vote YES if there is an advantage for themselves, not for the greater good.
I'm reading the various posted "solutions" and there's one obvious (to me) thing missing. Why would the lowest ranked pirate ever agree with any distribution by the others? See below:
"if it's 50% or more against, you kill that highest rank"
So, if the problem were simplified to just 2 pirates, the lower ranking pirate gets everything by default by just voting against whatever the other pirate proposes. The lower ranking pirate has all the power since he makes up 50% of the vote with only 2 people.
Thus, it should be assumed that pirate #5 will always vote against, in hopes of being put in the final situation. He has nothing to gain by not voting against, since his life is not in danger. Plus, nowhere in the problem does it say that by voting against that a pirate loses his share of the bounty.
Given that pirates 1) put a slightly higher priority on living rather than getting gold, 2) don't give a damn whether the others live or die (so if they can get the same amount of gold either way, they'll choose to do their buddy(s) in anyway), 3) know that all the other pirates think the exact same way.
Now, knowing this, how would the other pirates react?
Okay, I'm back.
Another thing that does not seem to be clear in the problem is whether voting against would cut the pirate off from getting his share (whatever it may be) if the majority voted for. It seems others are assuming that by voting against, the pirate forfeits the proposed share of the treasure for himself. The problem doesn't state this anywhere, so I don't assume this (although I do assume that all the pirates want to live, don't care at all if the others die, and know that the others think the exact same way).
I was never good at these types of problems, so I don't have a solution thought up yet. But using the above info should provide an adequate solution.
I looked at the reasoning by others, but they all seem to miss something. Namely:
"if it's 50% or more against, you kill that highest rank"
So, if the problem were simplified to just 2 pirates, the lower ranking pirate gets everything by default by just voting against whatever the other pirate proposes. The lower ranking pirate has all the power since he makes up 50% of the vote with only 2 people.
Thus, it should be assumed that pirate #5 will always vote against, in hopes of being put in the final situation. He has nothing to gain by not voting against, since his life is not in danger.
Now, knowing this, how would the other pirates react? (Ack! I'm out of time! I'll come back later!!) *signs out*
Slashdot Mirror
I think the first android that was mentioned in the article is the one shown in this link:
= 13
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4714135.stm
From the photos, I'd say that the Japanese one looks more life-like, but that could just be because of the close-up on the Korean one.
Also, I think they both count as androids simply because they look (at least semi-convincingly) human, rather than anything really technically sophisticated. Check what Answers.com has to say:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=android&gwp
This one's old, but the site below reviews a book called "The Legend of Rah and the Muggles." The book was written by Nancy K. Stouffer, who decided to sue J.K. Rowlings for the use of the word "muggle" and for supposedly taking similar storytelling elements of writing, too. Hah! Read it and cringe along with the reviewer. The part about the treatment of burns by the book's characters gave me goosebumps (you have to read it to believe it). http://www.magespace.net/mugrev.html
Hello "grow the fuck up" AC,
Maybe you should learn how to read stuff beforehand. Notice the word "british" for grandparent AC and, if you go up a bit, you'll find that RDW came back to say:
"I've just found that this seems to be limited to searches from a UK IP address. When I run the search via VNC from a browser running on a remote system in Italy, I get the same hits as general_re. With the UK search, the next few hits are for UK double glazing companies (!) and a UK poetry workshop site (www.windowsproject.demon.co.uk)."
I agree with you Pneuma. Over at Mozillazine, the standard reply to anyone who posts saying/threatening that (s)he'll switch back to IE (or go to Opera) is "Goodbye :) Nice to have known ya."
The extension in question (not yours) was already compatible and available for 1.5. The problem was that the maxversion was not written according to the guidelines provided (nothing to do with testing, since that part of the process was already done). The mistake in the maxversion labeling caused Firefox 1.5.0.1 to think that the extension was incompatible (hey, it's just reading what was provided by the extension author).
The problem isn't that the extension is incompatible, but that the extension creator(s) didn't bother to follow the guidelines provided for compatibility version labeling. The security update isn't big enough to compromise the functioning of extensions. The Nightly Tester Tools extension easily does the maxversion bumping that you want until the extension author(s) realize that they had ignored the guidelines.
I think that because we are using advanced forms of technology to send information, we feel the need to make things develop more quickly.
/.ers*) over something the other person posted in her(I'm assuming female) public LJ. The post angered me and I left a comment telling her how wrong I thought she was. This angered her and she replied back with some accusations/assumptions of what my political mentality was and demanded that I explain myself because she saw nothing wrong with her post.
Exactly! I once got into a semi-flame war with someone on LiveJournal (*can already hear the hissing from the majority of
Well, after taking a day to think out my argument, I posted back with indignance dripping from every word that I had typed, explaining to her, point by point, what had been wrong with her post(s).
Three days went by (there was a weekend) before she replied with a somewhat calmer, but nonetheless ticked-off reply to my previous reply. There were some points that I disagreed with completely, but within that reply I found a nugget of logic that made me go back to her original post and notice my error in interpretation. Ouch.
However, this deflated my prior anger to the original post and left me with a nice feeling of relief. Some other things came up in real-life and by the time I got some time to reply (which was about five days later), I had gotten over almost all of my knee-jerk anger over her last reply.
I calmly typed up a reply in which I 1) admitted my mistake, 2) told her how relieved I was to be released from my anger, 3) thanked her for her last reply, and 4) apologized. I also made a note that I was not being sarcastic about my reply (if I was, it fails as satire). Oh, and 5) pointed out a mistake in one of her previous arguments but indicated that I didn't want to really argue about it any further.
Two days later I got a reply from her. No anger, no name-calling, nothing. Just an honest reply from her thanking me for attempting to defend my opinions rather than just leaving a flame and disappearing. The really nice part was that she apologized to me for making the accusations/assumptions concerning my political mentality. It seems that the few days she took in typing out her prior reply had helped her put her words in perspective, which in turn had given me more insight into what she had really meant before.
All in all, things ended quite well (I have a much better opinion of this person now). It's amazing how taking some time to think things through rather than letting the emotion of the moment dictate your words can change how people can interact over the net.
I recognize that this is simply a preference (or rather, just which kind of browsing habit you tend to do more) and I do see why your (Opera's) way is good sometimes (but it's definitely not good for when I want to open multiple links in tabs at once and then go through them one by one).
But then I think, "Can't you accomplish the exact same thing by just opening the link in the same tab and then hitting the back button (or gesturing back) once you're done?" I feel that there may be something I'm missing here, but I can't come up with why it would be any different.
Ooooh! I'd better try out those buttons when I get home. (Why can't that page be easier to find?)
I'm a Firefox user (and love it!) but I do recognize that Opera is also a good browser. It's just that things like what the grandparent mentioned (especially with the diffculty of finding the pref/method) has been turning me off of Opera and back to Firefox before I could even get to the juicy bits.
Also, while I'm on the subject, why is it not possible for me to place any buttons into the menu toolbar (the one with "File, Edit, View, etc.")? Firefox allows me to do this, and it seems stupid to leave such a large empty space there. It might have made sense back when ads occupied that spot, but I don't see why it is still that way now (Opera version 8.51).
In the second movie, didn't Andy's mom say that Woody was a family heirloom? In other words, Woody is older than Andy (especially judging by the old TV show he had). Wouldn't this mean that it's possible that at least Woody would be passed on to the next generation of the family (if not Andy's kid, maybe a younger relative)?
That actually brings up an idea. How about the story of Woody's past (from when he was bought to when he was passed into Andy's care)? Don't know how they would explain Woody's amnesia, though. It's not worth making it into a full-blown theatre movie, but a direct-to-DVD movie may be feasible.
Sorry, I meant "viruses that don't have DNA."
I did a bit more search into who these "scientists that wrote the text books to support Darwin's evolution" you were talking about were. Guess what I find? This:
. html
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/unlocking
I must have missed all those earlier books/articles that these particular scientists wrote supporting the theory of evolution, but I'm pretty sure they didn't write THE textbooks for the subject.
I'm also pretty sure that you (LovedByGod) won't be able to give me (valid) cited evidence to the contrary. And even if you try, I'm also sure I (or someone else) will point out a major flaw in the evidence.
Good Day,
Monika
P.S. How do you explain viruses (which don't have DNA)?
Could Flock be considered a distro of Firefox?
I've read that the code is based on Firefox, although I'm not so sure how the "social" functions have been implemented into it.
I'm a Firefox user, but have Opera installed as something to play around with when I'm in the mood to explore its various functionalities. It may be that I'm too used to Firefox, but there's something about the way Opera displays its options that annoys me.
I can tell it's a great browser, though, so if someone doesn't like Firefox (for a reason that can't be fixed by tweaking/extension) I refer them over to Opera.
Anyway, I frequently visit Mozillazine, so one day I decided to see what gets talked about in the Opera forums. After a bit of reading, I decided to search for threads/posts that mentioned Firefox. The majority of the threads turned out to be the pinings for the addition of the AdBlock extension to Opera.
If Opera were to get the functionality of this extension, Firefox user base would drop dramatically.
pstils, Head over to Mozillazine forums and describe your problem(s) over there in a bit more detail. Someone should be able to help you.
Don't know if someone's mentioned this yet, but the wording has been changed to
"So far we have validated that the contest and its rules are legal in the United States, Canada (excluding Quebec), and the European Union."
I'm guessing that there's going to be more edits and countries added as time progresses.
Tabbrowser Preferences? *spits at TBP*
Seriously, other than that it's integrated into the Options window, TBP has nothing over Tab Mix Plus. The only reason it's so 'popular' despite its 3-star rating is because it happens to have a cozy spot on the main extensions page where it gets the most exposure to those who haven't experienced better.
Nevermind, you're correct with 97-0-1-0-2 and 97-0-1-2-0. The unexplained (read: assumed by the smart ones) bits threw me off on the logic. But there's a reason why I don't accept 98-0-1-0-1 as an answer.
The following is my attempt to have it make sense to even laypeople like me.
Working backwards from pirates #4 and 5:
No matter what #4 says, #5 will always vote NO because he will receive everything (50% or more rule). Thus, #4 wants to avoid this scenario.
[#5 = 100]
Pirates #3, 4, and 5:
#3, knowing that #4 will vote YES no matter what to stay alive, keeps all 100 pieces to himself since the vote will be, #3&4 = YES, #5 = NO.
[#3 = 100, #4 = 0, #5 = 0]
Pirates #2, 3, 4, and 5:
Knowing that the above will happen if #3 gets his way, #2 gives one gold piece each to #4 and #5. Since #4 and #5 want to get at least something, they will both vote YES. So the vote will be #2&4&5 = YES, #3 = NO.
[#2 = 98, #3 = 0, #4 = 1, #5 = 1]
Pirates #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5:
Now things get interesting. #1 must get three votes (himself and two more) to survive. Given the above, #2 will always vote NO. To ensure the other votes, #1 will only have to give one piece of gold more than what the above scenario will provide to two others. Since he only needs two more votes, one piece will be given to #3 (to save on cost) and one more piece to either #4 or #5 (no need for both). So the vote will be #1 = YES, #2 = NO, #3 = YES, #4 = YES/NO, #5 = NO/YES.
[#1 = 97, #2 = 0, #3 = 1, #4 = 2 or 0, #5 = 0 or 2]
98-0-1-0-1 (or 98-0-1-1-0) will not work because neither #4 nor #5 will be given a reason to vote YES. Remember, pirates will only vote YES if there is an advantage for themselves, not for the greater good.
I'm reading the various posted "solutions" and there's one obvious (to me) thing missing. Why would the lowest ranked pirate ever agree with any distribution by the others? See below:
"if it's 50% or more against, you kill that highest rank"
So, if the problem were simplified to just 2 pirates, the lower ranking pirate gets everything by default by just voting against whatever the other pirate proposes. The lower ranking pirate has all the power since he makes up 50% of the vote with only 2 people.
Thus, it should be assumed that pirate #5 will always vote against, in hopes of being put in the final situation. He has nothing to gain by not voting against, since his life is not in danger. Plus, nowhere in the problem does it say that by voting against that a pirate loses his share of the bounty.
Given that pirates 1) put a slightly higher priority on living rather than getting gold, 2) don't give a damn whether the others live or die (so if they can get the same amount of gold either way, they'll choose to do their buddy(s) in anyway), 3) know that all the other pirates think the exact same way.
Now, knowing this, how would the other pirates react?
Okay, I'm back.
Another thing that does not seem to be clear in the problem is whether voting against would cut the pirate off from getting his share (whatever it may be) if the majority voted for. It seems others are assuming that by voting against, the pirate forfeits the proposed share of the treasure for himself. The problem doesn't state this anywhere, so I don't assume this (although I do assume that all the pirates want to live, don't care at all if the others die, and know that the others think the exact same way).
I was never good at these types of problems, so I don't have a solution thought up yet. But using the above info should provide an adequate solution.
I looked at the reasoning by others, but they all seem to miss something. Namely: "if it's 50% or more against, you kill that highest rank" So, if the problem were simplified to just 2 pirates, the lower ranking pirate gets everything by default by just voting against whatever the other pirate proposes. The lower ranking pirate has all the power since he makes up 50% of the vote with only 2 people. Thus, it should be assumed that pirate #5 will always vote against, in hopes of being put in the final situation. He has nothing to gain by not voting against, since his life is not in danger. Now, knowing this, how would the other pirates react? (Ack! I'm out of time! I'll come back later!!) *signs out*