My first experience with computers was some data entry I did for a small company for some ice-cream money. The software was not very flexible and I ended up accidentally erasing my work.
It left a bad taste in my mouth (as did no ice-cream).
Later my friend talked me into taking a programming class after school in my senior high-school year, on TRS-80's. I was hesitant, but when I learned programming allowed me direct control over the computer I realized that one could make data entry far easier than that crap-ware I used before. I was the master and the computer was my loyal slave! It was better than bossing my little brother around because the computer didn't yap back.
I also made a simplified Space-Invaders-like game in the class, which really felt cool, although it was spaghetti-code galore in hindsight. My friend got ticked at me for hogging the computer.
"Tinkerer" is perhaps a better name for that, but maybe not as "sexy". Each generation has to jack with language to make it "in", such as the word "jack".
I don't think the actual existence of Jesus as (at least) a person is really relevant, but would still like to see the evidence for his existence. I do not believe any direct record of him exists.
What AI really needs is a wife that nags it if it f8cks up.
Humans seem pretty subject to close-call-foul-ups too. When proof-reading my own writing, often I don't spot a problem because my mind translates the pattern as I intended, not as I wrote it. For example, if I meant to write "Finding the Right Person for the Job..." but instead wrote it as "Finding the Right Pearson for the Job..." (note the "a"), there's a fairly high chance I'd miss it because the pattern of what I meant clogs my objectivity, even after multiple readings.
And I have come close to hitting pedestrians who wore clothing resembling the colors of the street at night. (Please don't wear dark clothes at night, people. It's hard to see with window glare etc.)
It should be common sense that one should not rely on WikiPedia for accurate medical info. But, there are not many alternatives. It would be nice if the AMA or similar institution created a kind of medical wiki that is only author-able by vetted practitioners.
Each topic could have a "regular Joe" section (tab) for us, and a medical-expert section (tab) for medical professionals with all their glorious lingo.
Why scatter and reinvent such knowledge all over the place? I'm sure putting such together is a lot of work, but it's work that is already being done, just in an uncoordinated way.
Slashdot Mirror
My first experience with computers was some data entry I did for a small company for some ice-cream money. The software was not very flexible and I ended up accidentally erasing my work.
It left a bad taste in my mouth (as did no ice-cream).
Later my friend talked me into taking a programming class after school in my senior high-school year, on TRS-80's. I was hesitant, but when I learned programming allowed me direct control over the computer I realized that one could make data entry far easier than that crap-ware I used before. I was the master and the computer was my loyal slave! It was better than bossing my little brother around because the computer didn't yap back.
I also made a simplified Space-Invaders-like game in the class, which really felt cool, although it was spaghetti-code galore in hindsight. My friend got ticked at me for hogging the computer.
"Tinkerer" is perhaps a better name for that, but maybe not as "sexy". Each generation has to jack with language to make it "in", such as the word "jack".
Q: "Why do you hack into computers?"
A: "Because that's where the data is."
If we inadvertently slashdot a government site, do we end up on the "watch list"?
Every image of a pool game will be taken down.
So, do we have to kill half a cat as a sacrifice at anniversaries? Or is that just at the quantum party?
Meh, anniversaries are relative.
Version incompatibilities. The refs will be arguing rules all game.
The Alaskan Penguins?
They can all see the trophy from their houses.
Wrong LA team
I would tell you, but it's not PC.
HP will make you install a plant cartridge just to use the human cartridge even if you never print plants.
SP #476: "I can see Earth from my house!"
SP #8303: "No you caaan't, that's just your meth bubble."
The problem is if they are too realistically human, they keep leaving you.
Let's print up 20,000 Sarah Palin's on Orionis IV just for the hell of it.
I don't think the actual existence of Jesus as (at least) a person is really relevant, but would still like to see the evidence for his existence. I do not believe any direct record of him exists.
Suing for spying? I would expect that type of thing to be an American invention.
Why is this acceptable humor but not the "Wi Tu Lo" Korean pilot jokes?
ought to be enough for anybody
What AI really needs is a wife that nags it if it f8cks up.
Humans seem pretty subject to close-call-foul-ups too. When proof-reading my own writing, often I don't spot a problem because my mind translates the pattern as I intended, not as I wrote it. For example, if I meant to write "Finding the Right Person for the Job..." but instead wrote it as "Finding the Right Pearson for the Job..." (note the "a"), there's a fairly high chance I'd miss it because the pattern of what I meant clogs my objectivity, even after multiple readings.
And I have come close to hitting pedestrians who wore clothing resembling the colors of the street at night. (Please don't wear dark clothes at night, people. It's hard to see with window glare etc.)
It should be common sense that one should not rely on WikiPedia for accurate medical info. But, there are not many alternatives. It would be nice if the AMA or similar institution created a kind of medical wiki that is only author-able by vetted practitioners.
Each topic could have a "regular Joe" section (tab) for us, and a medical-expert section (tab) for medical professionals with all their glorious lingo.
Why scatter and reinvent such knowledge all over the place? I'm sure putting such together is a lot of work, but it's work that is already being done, just in an uncoordinated way.
No, he determined that 640 chairs should be enough for any stadium.
"It looks like you are trying to lose to get a draft pick. Would you like some help losing?"
Baldies?
Just make sure to invite Ron "Peace" Artest.