Unlike you, I think that religion is highly darwinistic. Because new religions and variations of religions (compare that to mutants) bore and die everyday, only the popular survive. It's not such an easy thing to make up a religion and make people accept it, people try all the time and few people really succeed. Of course from our point of vue protestantism or islam hardly could be wiped off the face of earth, but it doesn't mean religions are not subject to comparable laws as the animal reign, it's just that the big religions are religion's rats, cats and dogs, you wouldn't see these disappear anytime soon.
Anyways, you seem to think that religion is somehow necessary, and that one can only be skeptic or faithful. You probably wouldn't think so if you lived in such countries as England or France where people don't make a cheesecake out of either religion or science;-)
Vallese added that that means that if remotes were, for instance, smashing into a television hard enough to cause the tube to explode or somehow stop working in a dangerous way, it could also be deemed a safety issue.
The tube to explode? First of all, since a cathodic tube is filled with vaccum, it might not create such a considerable deflagration, and then, what about people who'd catch Wiimotes in the head/face/eyes?
Interesting, however, in some places of this darwinisting world like western Europe, religious fanatics are an endangered species and science doesn't have to fight either for supremacy or survival anymore.
Man, it's like you're giving us the stick for us to beat you up with.
Because in case you didn't realize, by saying everything you just said you can argue that a PC without an OS is a product because it works since it makes light and you can actually use the BIOS. While you might have realized this, it means that while a PC without an OS is as much of a product that works as a DVD player without a DVD, it also means that if you claim that a PC without an OS is not a product because it doesn't work, it means that you can also claim that "A DVD player without a DVD is not a product, because it doesn't work...", as the GP did, which means that while kind of trying to prove wrong the GP you actually kind of prove him right, if we can say such a thing..
In general, a sample size of 1,000 gives 95% confidence that your result is within +/-3% of the actual result.
True, but how many iTunes purchases will you get in a sample of 2,000 credit card accounts? I don't know, but it should be a few percents, if even a percent. Because of that +/- 3% thing (although it's not 3% anymore for 2,000 samples) you'll hardly get a very meaningful result.
It's as if you polled 1,000 random persons twice, compared how much Ralph Nader got each time and say that he became suddenly popular because first time he had 0.6% of people polled (or 6 persons if you prefer) and then next time he had 1.1% (5 persons more).
In our precise case, I think the signal is buried too deep down the noise to be relevant. By the way, I'm not sure to understand whether your post means you're saying that the credit card polling is relevant or not.
I don't agree, you don't want to see for example a project like PearPC with a 1.0 when it barely works and a 3.x when it works just OK. The 0 means something, it's not superfluous
Re:Version Number Deflation...
on
VLC 0.8.6 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I think the difficulty of going from 0.x.x to 1.0 is that it may turn out that, after slowly adding feature after feature and fixing bug after bug to the point it'd deserve to be called 1.0, you're at something like 0.4.6 and as much as you'd like to call it 1.0 there's no way your program would deserve this huge incrementation over nothing. Just look at VLC or eMule, when should they have moved to 1.0? After 0.7.2 for VLC and 0.42e for eMule maybe?
You see, I just think that when your program evolves in a continuous manner and that no revolution is planned, it's hard to increment the first number of your version, and it has nothing to do with snobbism or incompetence.
Funny that you mention that, it made me look at my FTP server log for the last 3 days, and I got 2 asian IPs, 3 europeeans and 1 north american.
And all trying to crack into account 'Administrator' as I don't have such an account but rather have 'root' as an account with all disks shared and read, write and delete permissions on.
Anyways, if i (or j) had to be a real number, that would be 0, because that's what the real part of i is worth (as its imaginary part is worth 1, I know, obvious..). It may be somehow wrong but I just consider complex numbers to be bi-dimensional numbers, and that's as simple of an explanation as it gets.
Following this explanation, it becomes quickly obvious that a Y coordinate cannot be aproximated with a X coordinate.
Are there really always two sides to every story? Does everyone's opinion really have equal weight? Should everyone always have equal input on every decision?
I agree with your points, and while I'm partially drifting off-topic, I'll say that's where one of the dangers of democracy is.
As you said, we are more and more becoming anti-experts, and to a lot of people, the opinion of a filmmaker (Michael Crichton) is worth more than a climatologist's, and your opinion about such complicated political questions as say the europeean constitution is considered to be worth more than the representatives you voted for.
I think we think that anyone's opinion might be worthy, put to much trust in our own judgement and not enough trust in the people who are paid for having an opinion for you, or even the people you have voted for to have an opinion for you on matters you're not competent to have an opinion on.
The public should have privacy, but the public official should have none. Zero. They're our employees, right?
The way I see things I find this idea inconsistent with the rest of your post, and even then, it doesn't really make sense.
1. Why not treat state and governement workers just like any other worker by depriving them of any privacy? 2. Why even deprive them of privacy at all? While I agree that we could watch them while they're in public, why watch them when they're alone in their office or alone at home or having sex with their wife or taking a poop? Because that's what what you're saying is about, watching the president poop. Do you want to see and hear George W. Bush poop? Would you maybe want to be alerted by text messages on your cell phone whenever the president's sitting on the throne? 3. Why not deprive of privacy other types of workers who have quite some influence on your life, like bankers for example?
Internet 2 is but a couple of years younger than its older sibling
Oh god, when will people (even on Slashdot!) realize that Internet != the Web? It's just plain aweful to see apparently computer-savvy people like you making the confusion. Oh well, not quite as bad as my sister who calls "Google" both Firefox and the Web.
The Internet is a network, the Web is a service that happens to use this network.
They could have hired a real photographer to shoot the winners, the winner's picture looks like it's been taken at a party a saturday night around 3:30am with a point-and-shoot digital camera.
Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science can remain apolitical?
No, not in the USA.
Trolling aside, this is really a problem you meet more frequently in the USA, and I think it's because americans are engaged in a big arm wrestling match between the science side and the faith side. That's how such topics as evolution or global warming become disproportionatedly huge debates as in Europe hardly anyone sees these topics as controversial, since even the roman catholic church admitted the theory of evolution, and as no-one can in their right mind question global warming.
Here, we rather discuss the consequences and the possible solutions, no matter the position on the political spectrum, as in the USA, it seems like the debate about whether global warming is due to our industrial activity or even is exists is kept alive in order to avoid having to move on to the next level, which is discussion of solutions and acting up.
If I was a bit more paranoiac than I am, I'd think that anyone having any interests in the oil industry is throwing oil (ha ha, i know, sorry) on the fire of this debate to protect their short and medium term interests.
Well that's a more detailed way to explain what I said, but this being said I think that no matter what you'll always get bogus results. That kind of stuff is pretty much like voice recognition, voice synthesis or text translation, will hardly ever be perfect or anywhere near that, mainly due to the kind of obstacles it meets (pretty much theorical ones). However I don't really know about the technology you're talking about, but it hardly can give more than an approximation of how things filmed really are like in 3D.
Ability to convert 2D television to 3D? I'm skeptical.
So am I. It's probably some stuff based on a vague shape "recognition" and the Z-axis data is "extrapolated" depending on the shape of the "recognized" area, in other words I guess it can give results but pretty bogus results. Still I guess it might do it for a lot of average joes, I'd be surprised if we ever saw "2D television converted in 3D" being ever widely adopted, sounds like a useless gadget.
"Internet Only 1% Porn" "only one percent of web pages contain pornography"
Once and for all (if only it could be so), the Internet and the Web are two different things. The web is well I guess anything using the HTTP protocole, which means only web pages, basically (please don't bring up particular cases). The Internet is the network, the whole thing, the web, mail, usenet, P2P, IRC, instant messaging, VoIP, multiplayer games, FTP, VNC, VPN, telnet, anything.
When I think of "visible from space" I think visible with the naked eye unassisted by electronic optics from an orbital distance.
Yeah, I thought about that too, and thought you definitly couldn't see it with the naked eye from space, I think it would have to cover hundreds of square meters to be seen from that far. I quickly estimated that each of the logo's pixels (if we can break it down into big pixels) would have to be at least 27x27 meters to be really seen from a vertical distance of 200 km (low earth orbit), so in order to have a logo looking as big as if it was 32x32 pixels to the naked eye from that distance the logo would have to be about 870x870 meters.
I guess that as it is, you could see it from space but you couldn't recognize our beloved Colonel Sanders.
Come on, you got his point, don't you? I was about to comment on that too, you don't need to make something friggin huge to have it seen from space, it's all about the resolution you can get from your satelitte, so saying that it's the "First Company Logo Visible From Space" is absurd, for more accuracy it should be "First Company Logo Meant To Be Visible From Space"
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike you, I think that religion is highly darwinistic. Because new religions and variations of religions (compare that to mutants) bore and die everyday, only the popular survive. It's not such an easy thing to make up a religion and make people accept it, people try all the time and few people really succeed. Of course from our point of vue protestantism or islam hardly could be wiped off the face of earth, but it doesn't mean religions are not subject to comparable laws as the animal reign, it's just that the big religions are religion's rats, cats and dogs, you wouldn't see these disappear anytime soon.
Anyways, you seem to think that religion is somehow necessary, and that one can only be skeptic or faithful. You probably wouldn't think so if you lived in such countries as England or France where people don't make a cheesecake out of either religion or science ;-)
Vallese added that that means that if remotes were, for instance, smashing into a television hard enough to cause the tube to explode or somehow stop working in a dangerous way, it could also be deemed a safety issue.
The tube to explode? First of all, since a cathodic tube is filled with vaccum, it might not create such a considerable deflagration, and then, what about people who'd catch Wiimotes in the head/face/eyes?
Interesting, however, in some places of this darwinisting world like western Europe, religious fanatics are an endangered species and science doesn't have to fight either for supremacy or survival anymore.
We, the brave frenchmen, have genocided Armenians in 1921. Google must not be your friend, it seems.
Man, it's like you're giving us the stick for us to beat you up with.
Because in case you didn't realize, by saying everything you just said you can argue that a PC without an OS is a product because it works since it makes light and you can actually use the BIOS. While you might have realized this, it means that while a PC without an OS is as much of a product that works as a DVD player without a DVD, it also means that if you claim that a PC without an OS is not a product because it doesn't work, it means that you can also claim that "A DVD player without a DVD is not a product, because it doesn't work...", as the GP did, which means that while kind of trying to prove wrong the GP you actually kind of prove him right, if we can say such a thing..
In general, a sample size of 1,000 gives 95% confidence that your result is within +/-3% of the actual result.
True, but how many iTunes purchases will you get in a sample of 2,000 credit card accounts? I don't know, but it should be a few percents, if even a percent. Because of that +/- 3% thing (although it's not 3% anymore for 2,000 samples) you'll hardly get a very meaningful result.
It's as if you polled 1,000 random persons twice, compared how much Ralph Nader got each time and say that he became suddenly popular because first time he had 0.6% of people polled (or 6 persons if you prefer) and then next time he had 1.1% (5 persons more).
In our precise case, I think the signal is buried too deep down the noise to be relevant. By the way, I'm not sure to understand whether your post means you're saying that the credit card polling is relevant or not.
So in a way, Russia fell to the level of the USA. Says much about the level at which the US are.
I know, I deserve to be modded down, I'm being a naughty troll.
I don't agree, you don't want to see for example a project like PearPC with a 1.0 when it barely works and a 3.x when it works just OK. The 0 means something, it's not superfluous
I think the difficulty of going from 0.x.x to 1.0 is that it may turn out that, after slowly adding feature after feature and fixing bug after bug to the point it'd deserve to be called 1.0, you're at something like 0.4.6 and as much as you'd like to call it 1.0 there's no way your program would deserve this huge incrementation over nothing. Just look at VLC or eMule, when should they have moved to 1.0? After 0.7.2 for VLC and 0.42e for eMule maybe?
You see, I just think that when your program evolves in a continuous manner and that no revolution is planned, it's hard to increment the first number of your version, and it has nothing to do with snobbism or incompetence.
Funny that you mention that, it made me look at my FTP server log for the last 3 days, and I got 2 asian IPs, 3 europeeans and 1 north american.
And all trying to crack into account 'Administrator' as I don't have such an account but rather have 'root' as an account with all disks shared and read, write and delete permissions on.
Oh and my IP is 62.147.133.191 :-)
i? you mean j? ;-)
Anyways, if i (or j) had to be a real number, that would be 0, because that's what the real part of i is worth (as its imaginary part is worth 1, I know, obvious..). It may be somehow wrong but I just consider complex numbers to be bi-dimensional numbers, and that's as simple of an explanation as it gets.
Following this explanation, it becomes quickly obvious that a Y coordinate cannot be aproximated with a X coordinate.
Are there really always two sides to every story? Does everyone's opinion really have equal weight? Should everyone always have equal input on every decision?
I agree with your points, and while I'm partially drifting off-topic, I'll say that's where one of the dangers of democracy is.
As you said, we are more and more becoming anti-experts, and to a lot of people, the opinion of a filmmaker (Michael Crichton) is worth more than a climatologist's, and your opinion about such complicated political questions as say the europeean constitution is considered to be worth more than the representatives you voted for.
I think we think that anyone's opinion might be worthy, put to much trust in our own judgement and not enough trust in the people who are paid for having an opinion for you, or even the people you have voted for to have an opinion for you on matters you're not competent to have an opinion on.
The public should have privacy, but the public official should have none. Zero. They're our employees, right?
The way I see things I find this idea inconsistent with the rest of your post, and even then, it doesn't really make sense.
1. Why not treat state and governement workers just like any other worker by depriving them of any privacy?
2. Why even deprive them of privacy at all? While I agree that we could watch them while they're in public, why watch them when they're alone in their office or alone at home or having sex with their wife or taking a poop? Because that's what what you're saying is about, watching the president poop. Do you want to see and hear George W. Bush poop? Would you maybe want to be alerted by text messages on your cell phone whenever the president's sitting on the throne?
3. Why not deprive of privacy other types of workers who have quite some influence on your life, like bankers for example?
Internet 2 is but a couple of years younger than its older sibling
Oh god, when will people (even on Slashdot!) realize that Internet != the Web? It's just plain aweful to see apparently computer-savvy people like you making the confusion. Oh well, not quite as bad as my sister who calls "Google" both Firefox and the Web.
The Internet is a network, the Web is a service that happens to use this network.
.
They could have hired a real photographer to shoot the winners, the winner's picture looks like it's been taken at a party a saturday night around 3:30am with a point-and-shoot digital camera.
Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science can remain apolitical?
No, not in the USA.
Trolling aside, this is really a problem you meet more frequently in the USA, and I think it's because americans are engaged in a big arm wrestling match between the science side and the faith side. That's how such topics as evolution or global warming become disproportionatedly huge debates as in Europe hardly anyone sees these topics as controversial, since even the roman catholic church admitted the theory of evolution, and as no-one can in their right mind question global warming.
Here, we rather discuss the consequences and the possible solutions, no matter the position on the political spectrum, as in the USA, it seems like the debate about whether global warming is due to our industrial activity or even is exists is kept alive in order to avoid having to move on to the next level, which is discussion of solutions and acting up.
If I was a bit more paranoiac than I am, I'd think that anyone having any interests in the oil industry is throwing oil (ha ha, i know, sorry) on the fire of this debate to protect their short and medium term interests.
The safest method of using P2P software is not to at all.
And the safest way to avoid catching an STD is not to have sex at all. If hope nobody modded you insightful for your first line.
They patented the fat head technology. I'm sure many people in Hollywood or Washington D.C. could claim prior art on this one
Well that's a more detailed way to explain what I said, but this being said I think that no matter what you'll always get bogus results. That kind of stuff is pretty much like voice recognition, voice synthesis or text translation, will hardly ever be perfect or anywhere near that, mainly due to the kind of obstacles it meets (pretty much theorical ones). However I don't really know about the technology you're talking about, but it hardly can give more than an approximation of how things filmed really are like in 3D.
Ability to convert 2D television to 3D? I'm skeptical.
So am I. It's probably some stuff based on a vague shape "recognition" and the Z-axis data is "extrapolated" depending on the shape of the "recognized" area, in other words I guess it can give results but pretty bogus results. Still I guess it might do it for a lot of average joes, I'd be surprised if we ever saw "2D television converted in 3D" being ever widely adopted, sounds like a useless gadget.
Awesome! Sounds like it means we won't have to wait until 2546 to crank prank call people in the past!
"Internet Only 1% Porn" "only one percent of web pages contain pornography"
Once and for all (if only it could be so), the Internet and the Web are two different things. The web is well I guess anything using the HTTP protocole, which means only web pages, basically (please don't bring up particular cases). The Internet is the network, the whole thing, the web, mail, usenet, P2P, IRC, instant messaging, VoIP, multiplayer games, FTP, VNC, VPN, telnet, anything.
When I think of "visible from space" I think visible with the naked eye unassisted by electronic optics from an orbital distance.
Yeah, I thought about that too, and thought you definitly couldn't see it with the naked eye from space, I think it would have to cover hundreds of square meters to be seen from that far. I quickly estimated that each of the logo's pixels (if we can break it down into big pixels) would have to be at least 27x27 meters to be really seen from a vertical distance of 200 km (low earth orbit), so in order to have a logo looking as big as if it was 32x32 pixels to the naked eye from that distance the logo would have to be about 870x870 meters.
I guess that as it is, you could see it from space but you couldn't recognize our beloved Colonel Sanders.
Dreamcast WAS made by Sega...
And? What didn't you understand? The PS3 is made by Sony and they get both articles locked anyways.
Come on, you got his point, don't you? I was about to comment on that too, you don't need to make something friggin huge to have it seen from space, it's all about the resolution you can get from your satelitte, so saying that it's the "First Company Logo Visible From Space" is absurd, for more accuracy it should be "First Company Logo Meant To Be Visible From Space"