"It's an ego booster in terms of self-worth," said Rose Marie Mills, principal at MS 343 in Mott Haven, where nearly 90 percent of students qualify for federal poverty aid.
It is sad to see that in America we have tied self-worth to monetary possession. Worse, that the most impoverished feel the least worthy.
Look at the countries near Japan. India? Turkey? Qatar? etc. Reporting bias is either pretty damn substantial or these countries are safe havens for women.
If anything, it is cultural and biological factors play bigger parts in these figures. Not the freedom to play video games or watch porn.
There is _not_ a whole world of difference. I am _now_ asking people to hate religions, including but not limited to christianity, judaism, and islam. By doing that I am breaking the law. That law is wrong on so many levels.
This provides and entirely separate channel with its own bandwidth in addition to traditionally understood modulation. They're right to be excited about it; it has the potential of being just as big in scope as was the invention of radio.
Isn't one of the hugest factors in the Fermi Paradox the "Great Silence" aka that if life in the universe is so abundant why don't we hear their radio transmissions?
Now, how many other "channels" out there do you think exist that we simply have no grasp or knowledge of?
Does this open up a new potential medium for listening?
The reason the time frame we give to an AI which we would like to be reasonably useful in the real world is so small is because if we wanted to take twenty something years to train an AI to be something intelligent--we could just make a baby.
The value of the promise of AIs is in that we could foresee a future where AIs are cheap, economic, and efficient in comparison to their human counterparts.
If AIs end up being expensive and slow (both in maturation and learning) then they would not be useful to use at all.
Finally someone out there is making some sense: Science is not fit (nor was it ever meant to be fit) to answer the question of God. Science requires that its hypothesis made are provable (or disprovable) and neither can be applied towards the question of God.
As the article states: "Asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God."
This will solve nothing if parents aren't responsible enough to realize that their child is simply playing way too many video games. If they have to depend on a timer to shut off the Xbox, what else do they rely on to do parenting for them?
I called the 8xx-get-fios number and they hadn't even heard of the plan.
Knowing the average slashdot user, it's probably because you requested the "Twenty-twenty symmetrical fiber optics to the premises internet service." Next time, just ask for the "really, really, really fast internet. Please."
A Jedi can slice through a person with a light saber with no perceptible change to the momentum of the saber, so it seems likely that there is not a whole lot of tactile feedback in a "real" light saber either. I think the tactile feedback would probably be little more than it would be if one were slicing a hot knife through butter. So, fencing with a light saber in any context would not "live up to" the experience of real fencing because the weapons involved are too different.
Have you ever fenced? Fencing does not involve slicing through people. At most, you poke a person. But the real art of fencing is in the swordplay.
And to reiterate a point: yes, you do forget that sabers make contact with other sabers, and that's where the missing feedback would have an impact (so to say) on the role playing experience.
There you actually have to think rather than regurgitate what has simply been given to you.
That's the most widespread myth about school there is. Everyone has pride in their own field (say mathematics) and they claim that in their own field they must actually think while all other fields (I've heard said about history, law, medicine, etc) are simply regurgitation. That's a lie. There isn't a skilled field in ANY industry (name anything) where you mustn't think. Even a plumber is capable and obligated to think. There is problem solving in almost anything. But there are so many people who raise their own discipline far above all others and think that almost anything else is regurgitation or learned through repetition or is simply second nature only because they took one or two classes in high school and that's all their first-hand experience has taught them. My best friend is in Med school and trust me, they think.
As many have posted, this blogpost is mostly pretentious at best. However, in the post he states:
Now suppose the test is very hard. As hard as it could be actually. Suppose the test is so hard that I, with lesser knowledge, can only answer one question based on actual knowledge. I answer that question, and guess at the other 99. You, who know twice as much as I, can answer two questions based on knowledge. So you guess at 98 answers.
As you can readily imagine, the odds of you getting a higher grade than I are very slight. In fact, over 45 percent of the time, in repeated trials, I would outscore you, even though my knowledge is half that of yours.
I'd like to point out the simple fact: in reality we don't worry about those who are two or three times as smart as the rest, their knowledges are mostly indistinguishable (as pointed out by the blogpost, albeit shakily), but we are looking for the many magnitudes of times smarter than the rest (so smart in fact that they surpass the flaws that he has pointed out). And that's where those taking 'hard tests' succeed and others do not. All these flaws are arguably non-existent but even in supposing their existence, it would do nothing to correct these flaws in our ability to be able to separate those capable of Med School or Law school and those who are not. Those capable, those in the very upper-ring, are just so capable that they surpass the very flaws of the test itself.
Now, let's be honest: there's no such thing as an alternative to Adobe's creative suite.
There's nothing out there that can compete in ease of use, or power. Someone mentioned superior tools to web design (notepad, for example) and I can agree there. But for the rest of the products mentioned (among them, photoshop, illustrator, indesign etc.) there's nothing else that can hold a candle up to Adobe.
At 95% accuracy, people aren't jumping on the bandwagon. Wood's typing speed is about 60 wpm with 93% accuracy, so he found that using speech recognition was about twice as fast as typing.
The difference in stated accuracies of typing versus speech recognition is the fact that when you're typing, you can easily and readily catch your mistakes. If I type the wrong letter, more often than not, even before I finish pushing down on the wrong key I will realize it and reach for the backspace. However, in speech recognition, you must pay very close attention to how the software renders your speech on the screen and subsequently find a way to fix it. This can be done in two ways, either: by stopping speaking and manually editing it with your keyboard, or by remembering that it was mistaken and going back at the end to correct it (because no one wants to be stopped or slowed down in their train of thought, which is half the reason I choose typing over penmanship). Either way, you have the problem of a two-pass proofread in comparison (all our CS majors know) to the on-the-fly proofread.
In the end, however, if a document in really important you will proofread it multiple times. So it's all up to preference. Personally, I prefer typing, regardless of accuracy, simply because I can catch my own mistakes on the run and correct it immediately. I am an attention to detail kind of person in the first place.
Sorry for the pseudo-rant on art classes, but I've been looking for art instruction for my young children, and it's very difficult to find. I finally found great book and I'm doing it myself.:) Note the picture on the cover that was done by a non-gifted five year old, BTW.
That picture, to be completely honest, looks gifted to me. I still can't draw that well. (Or color, for that matter).
But I do (!) program. And yes, BASIC started it all.
I lot of people are pointing out that Frank mistook Miyamoto's comment.
I think a lot of people are mistaking Frank's comment. It doesn't seem like he's retorting, as people put it, but instead making a sly-sarcastic remark. He not affirming Miyamoto's point (that he just finds what people like and makes that), he's replying to Miyamoto's remark (I can make Halo, but choose not to) with his own remark: I could('ve) made Mario, but choose not to.
Yes, he states, "We are hard at work on a side-scrolling platform game..." But we know he's not. It's obviously a joke. He could be hard at work on that side-scroller, but he chooses not to. He's hard at work on Halo. And that's that.
WoW's effect on people is similar to some drugs but to a much lesser degree and without a chemical component.
There's a chemical component, this is why we like it so much. It gives us a rush. It creates endorphins and satisfaction (albiet temporary). Our brain might release these chemicals and they may not be injected, so to say, but they are chemicals and they do come with the experience of the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Sustainable space stations... Didn't they do that in Disney's Wall-E?
How'd that turn out for them?
From the article:
"It's an ego booster in terms of self-worth," said Rose Marie Mills, principal at MS 343 in Mott Haven, where nearly 90 percent of students qualify for federal poverty aid.
It is sad to see that in America we have tied self-worth to monetary possession. Worse, that the most impoverished feel the least worthy.
Reporting bias and Living out your fantasies does not add up to the difference either.
Living out your fantasies did not even begin to occur in Japan till recently. Have rape rates gone down?
Your deduction is not so clear as you perceive.
As far as reporting rates go, check out this: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
Look at the countries near Japan. India? Turkey? Qatar? etc. Reporting bias is either pretty damn substantial or these countries are safe havens for women.
If anything, it is cultural and biological factors play bigger parts in these figures. Not the freedom to play video games or watch porn.
There is _not_ a whole world of difference. I am _now_ asking people to hate religions, including but not limited to christianity, judaism, and islam. By doing that I am breaking the law. That law is wrong on so many levels.
My friend, you are wrong for your hate.
If the movie Gattaca hasn't convinced you that this is wrong: I don't know what will.
Well, after this whole debacle I would've chosen the New York Post for this joke instead.
This provides and entirely separate channel with its own bandwidth in addition to traditionally understood modulation. They're right to be excited about it; it has the potential of being just as big in scope as was the invention of radio.
Isn't one of the hugest factors in the Fermi Paradox the "Great Silence" aka that if life in the universe is so abundant why don't we hear their radio transmissions?
Now, how many other "channels" out there do you think exist that we simply have no grasp or knowledge of?
Does this open up a new potential medium for listening?
Can't rip it, can't archive it, can't move it to my HDD without the dongle. And if the flash drive gets damaged, who you gonna call?
The pirate bay.
You can find it by legal means: http://www.hulu.com/watch/25534/ghostbusters
Full length streaming movie. There are occasional ads, but they are neither long nor annoying.
The reason the time frame we give to an AI which we would like to be reasonably useful in the real world is so small is because if we wanted to take twenty something years to train an AI to be something intelligent--we could just make a baby.
The value of the promise of AIs is in that we could foresee a future where AIs are cheap, economic, and efficient in comparison to their human counterparts.
If AIs end up being expensive and slow (both in maturation and learning) then they would not be useful to use at all.
If I was asserting your claim I would have simply said: IA.
Finally someone out there is making some sense: Science is not fit (nor was it ever meant to be fit) to answer the question of God. Science requires that its hypothesis made are provable (or disprovable) and neither can be applied towards the question of God.
As the article states: "Asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God."
P.S. IAC
How do you know that he wasn't the one who posted the code in the forum in the first place? How do you know it wasn't his code to begin with?
This will solve nothing if parents aren't responsible enough to realize that their child is simply playing way too many video games. If they have to depend on a timer to shut off the Xbox, what else do they rely on to do parenting for them?
I called the 8xx-get-fios number and they hadn't even heard of the plan.
Knowing the average slashdot user, it's probably because you requested the "Twenty-twenty symmetrical fiber optics to the premises internet service." Next time, just ask for the "really, really, really fast internet. Please."
The U.S. ain't goin to pay.
Courage always helped me build the best bridges!
Coming from an AC, I guess courage is also the foundation your identity is built upon.
A Jedi can slice through a person with a light saber with no perceptible change to the momentum of the saber, so it seems likely that there is not a whole lot of tactile feedback in a "real" light saber either. I think the tactile feedback would probably be little more than it would be if one were slicing a hot knife through butter. So, fencing with a light saber in any context would not "live up to" the experience of real fencing because the weapons involved are too different.
Have you ever fenced? Fencing does not involve slicing through people. At most, you poke a person. But the real art of fencing is in the swordplay.
And to reiterate a point: yes, you do forget that sabers make contact with other sabers, and that's where the missing feedback would have an impact (so to say) on the role playing experience.
There you actually have to think rather than regurgitate what has simply been given to you.
That's the most widespread myth about school there is. Everyone has pride in their own field (say mathematics) and they claim that in their own field they must actually think while all other fields (I've heard said about history, law, medicine, etc) are simply regurgitation. That's a lie. There isn't a skilled field in ANY industry (name anything) where you mustn't think. Even a plumber is capable and obligated to think. There is problem solving in almost anything. But there are so many people who raise their own discipline far above all others and think that almost anything else is regurgitation or learned through repetition or is simply second nature only because they took one or two classes in high school and that's all their first-hand experience has taught them. My best friend is in Med school and trust me, they think.
As many have posted, this blogpost is mostly pretentious at best. However, in the post he states:
Now suppose the test is very hard. As hard as it could be actually. Suppose the test is so hard that I, with lesser knowledge, can only answer one question based on actual knowledge. I answer that question, and guess at the other 99. You, who know twice as much as I, can answer two questions based on knowledge. So you guess at 98 answers. As you can readily imagine, the odds of you getting a higher grade than I are very slight. In fact, over 45 percent of the time, in repeated trials, I would outscore you, even though my knowledge is half that of yours.
I'd like to point out the simple fact: in reality we don't worry about those who are two or three times as smart as the rest, their knowledges are mostly indistinguishable (as pointed out by the blogpost, albeit shakily), but we are looking for the many magnitudes of times smarter than the rest (so smart in fact that they surpass the flaws that he has pointed out). And that's where those taking 'hard tests' succeed and others do not. All these flaws are arguably non-existent but even in supposing their existence, it would do nothing to correct these flaws in our ability to be able to separate those capable of Med School or Law school and those who are not. Those capable, those in the very upper-ring, are just so capable that they surpass the very flaws of the test itself.
Now, let's be honest: there's no such thing as an alternative to Adobe's creative suite.
There's nothing out there that can compete in ease of use, or power. Someone mentioned superior tools to web design (notepad, for example) and I can agree there. But for the rest of the products mentioned (among them, photoshop, illustrator, indesign etc.) there's nothing else that can hold a candle up to Adobe.
At 95% accuracy, people aren't jumping on the bandwagon. Wood's typing speed is about 60 wpm with 93% accuracy, so he found that using speech recognition was about twice as fast as typing.
The difference in stated accuracies of typing versus speech recognition is the fact that when you're typing, you can easily and readily catch your mistakes. If I type the wrong letter, more often than not, even before I finish pushing down on the wrong key I will realize it and reach for the backspace. However, in speech recognition, you must pay very close attention to how the software renders your speech on the screen and subsequently find a way to fix it. This can be done in two ways, either: by stopping speaking and manually editing it with your keyboard, or by remembering that it was mistaken and going back at the end to correct it (because no one wants to be stopped or slowed down in their train of thought, which is half the reason I choose typing over penmanship). Either way, you have the problem of a two-pass proofread in comparison (all our CS majors know) to the on-the-fly proofread.
In the end, however, if a document in really important you will proofread it multiple times. So it's all up to preference. Personally, I prefer typing, regardless of accuracy, simply because I can catch my own mistakes on the run and correct it immediately. I am an attention to detail kind of person in the first place.
After watching the video on the frontpage, this sort of reminds me of Hypercard (and HyperStudio).
Anyone else nostaltic of Middle School Technology classes as me?
Sorry for the pseudo-rant on art classes, but I've been looking for art instruction for my young children, and it's very difficult to find. I finally found great book and I'm doing it myself. :) Note the picture on the cover that was done by a non-gifted five year old, BTW.
That picture, to be completely honest, looks gifted to me. I still can't draw that well. (Or color, for that matter).
But I do (!) program. And yes, BASIC started it all.
I lot of people are pointing out that Frank mistook Miyamoto's comment.
I think a lot of people are mistaking Frank's comment. It doesn't seem like he's retorting, as people put it, but instead making a sly-sarcastic remark. He not affirming Miyamoto's point (that he just finds what people like and makes that), he's replying to Miyamoto's remark (I can make Halo, but choose not to) with his own remark: I could('ve) made Mario, but choose not to.
Yes, he states, "We are hard at work on a side-scrolling platform game..." But we know he's not. It's obviously a joke. He could be hard at work on that side-scroller, but he chooses not to. He's hard at work on Halo. And that's that.
WoW's effect on people is similar to some drugs but to a much lesser degree and without a chemical component.
There's a chemical component, this is why we like it so much. It gives us a rush. It creates endorphins and satisfaction (albiet temporary). Our brain might release these chemicals and they may not be injected, so to say, but they are chemicals and they do come with the experience of the game.