does that mean, i am a superbrained smartass, if i can trilanguate every word, since i speak at least three languages fluently, and my mindvoctionary is increasable by having enough fantastination to invent new meanforms for words?
very awooting and quite reljoyaxing. my IQ is endless.
But it is discrimination *g* You can't just take more money from ethnic group A, just because it is said, they drive faster and so on. You can't take more money from sex 2, just because some statistics say sex 2 does this and that.
however what you can do is take more money overall and putting people into risk based groups after watching their behaviour. this is how you should run an insurance company. it's about equal chance.
especially if genes may say much less than we sometimes expect, about real risks having genes of a murderer may never make you murder anybody. it is more or less a hype around genes. i heard some great philosophical biologist say, "it's not the genes we should be afraid of. genes mutate slowly and influence in great combinations, but mostly very lettly. it's behaviour and morality we should be concerned about. it mutates fast and has terrible influence" (free citation, forgotten his name, sry/.)
smoking (the ACT) is not a desease, however nicotine addiction IS. because nicotine is a DRUG - a legal one - and drug addiction is a desease you can look that up.
what you seek for is "genetic disorder" or "non-idiopathic-desease". but they are hardly the ones we are afraid of if we talk about gene-disorders. because the ones we get "without our help in life" are coming anyway and will classify us anyway in some sort of way. somebody who is born diabetic, will be diabetic.
this is not the real issue, when it comes to be afraid of genetic maps, its more or like the genes, which can cause disorders "with a chance".
nicotine addiction is an idiopathic desease, and you can get it by inhaling nicotine passively or actively, however you can have genes which provoke you to be more addicted or less addicted. so the addiction itself is NOT completely behaviour.
you can't entirely blame people for their addiction. as with any idiopathic deseases, you can get it by external influences. you can get heartdesease by having not enough exercise and eating a lot of fat, you can get diabetes by eating a lot of sugar - but you don't have to.
most genetic disorders would classify you to hold a certain diet just to "minimize" the risk of being ill. the risk of getting addicted to cigarettes may forbid certain people to smoke, while others can do it, because they can't get addicted, so their risk of getting lung cancer stays low. some people may go and eat sugar and fat, others dont. even if the genes never kick in, and the one smoking one cigarette a year may get lung cancer and the chainsmoker dont, or somebody without genetic abnormalities getting diabetes while not eating much sugar, and somebody else eating a lot of sugar AND having risky genes may never develop the syndrome, chances are only chances, and you should not classify people by uncertain things.
being classified by "chances" is highly unmoral. and that's what is heating the issue, not whether some deseases are more "your own fault" than the others.
heroine addiction is a desease, like gaming addiction or addiction to sport. being addicted IS always a DISORDER
try somebody, who has addictive genes, or has made through nicotine or other highly addictive substances (nicotine is one of the WORST by the way, even worse than alcohol to get rid off) say in the face he was not ill. well. I wish you never live through that, it IS hell.
and smoking is not a behaviour. if it would be, people who want to stop, could just stop.
After all, with a userbase of ten million, the nation of Azeroth explicitly using LUA in their 3d Webbrowser it should count for something!?
I expected a lot of books written about it for now, with about 100 pages and 40 pages of them containing high-performance graphs screenshotted from "the game" itself, adressing important scientific issues like: "Increase Output and Minimize Input - A Warriors Guide" "The Right Array Management and Database Access for Spambots" "Multiple Transfer and Transaction Management for Traders" (with chinese intro) "Hardware Process Automation to optimize a Pointing Device" "Colored Interface Design for Orcs" "Nightelves Guide to Arithmetic Trees - Solving the Bagpack Problem" (with an approach to world travel solutions) "Developing Daemons" (with an example of a cronjob to remind you to go to sleep before you die)
To what does that leave python as fcgi replacement for PHP? does the locking issue present disadvantages to Python after all? because i was thinking, suggesting people to make their webpages in python rather than PHP was a good idea, not just in performance, but also in code maintabality. AFAIK in fcgi only one instance of the interpreter is running, so this would cause slowdowns after all?
or as scripting language for servers? given you have an online server for a lot of users (around 300, like the game server for a mmog), and needs to be scripted, and could be written in C# or in C++/Python, which would be the choice here? would thread-lock make it slower in python? my experience is, that a software written in C# is hell of a fast in allocating a lot of "items" (objects) and dont cause "server slowdowns" in complex operations, however, it is constantly slower than the C++/python counterpart at the first glimpse.
it would honestly interest me, even if the question seems weird.
actually i got very used to the nipple, because if you write, its just some centimeters away.
I even use the nipple, if my mouse is with me. e.g. to move away the mouse cursor from text, or to touch the side of the screen with the mouse to have some menus popping out, or mostly, to position my mouse into the text to write somewhere else, because its easier, when you dont have to stop writing just because of that, aand the nipple is very good for fast mouse actions.
i wouldn't say the nipple is useless. however, it lacks the scrollwheel and the superior finetuning of a mouse, that's why a mouse is a must.
i dont like touchpads however, because i touch them when i am writing or clicking accidently on them... which is annoying if i just "drag and drop" files around while i am only supposed to move the mouse. I am one, who will never get used to touchpads i think.
You created me, Microsoft So I guess you're to blame For the "love" that I feel Just from hearing your name You're as open as future And warm as pastell
Just remember... there was a time, when ATi didn't provide open drivers, nor specifications...
I always had the feeling, they open their specs, because they can't hold up with nvidia and closed source driver development...
and until today, I still prefer nVidia with closed source drivers over ATi with open drivers on my desktop... even if nvidia has glitches with rects/shadows in opengl sometimes, and leaves nice grey stripes on my desktop with compiz (something which happened in windows too some time ago), the 3d, playback, 2d and so on work greatly and fast! The closed ATi drivers don't offer everything, and the open ones cause Xv+kaffeine to crash my XServer from time to time, or have mouse cursor problems, and I have to tweak around all the time... so with ATi I can switch between performance+bugs and slowness+stability, in nvidia i have to install closed drivers from time to time but it is fast and stable... I prefer second option.
But that might change in future, of course. But I wouldnt depict nVidia as evil, just because ATi (which was less supportive to linux) now opens its driverbase.
I admit, I would want to rant about their success. Is it jealousy? Maybe. But let's keep that aside for a moment. They talk about innovation.
Nearly every aspect of World Of Warcraft is stolen from other games. Example: UO. You can find a lot of similarities, from mounts to gray death screen. UO still has features, WoW hasn't. But most importantly: UO takes a lot of innovation from the so called freeshard-scene, and i think, this is also the reason origin never pursued those emulated servers in the first place. E.g. the speech system which does not allow you to read other's language is something which was developed on UO roleplaying shards (as for I know, but it could have been also in some MUDs) - so it is not new in WoW.
So, why is WoW still better than the other mmogs? well, let's face it: it is because they took all the good things and tinkered it to something better. So, yes, they are successful. And yes, they can talk about how to get successful, how to keep successful.
However, I rant, because it is not innovation, they should talk about. There is hardly any great innovation in WoW from my perspective. It's a fun game, trying to suit the majority of players, the company cares for the players, they did some good decisions (e.g. low hardware specs, scriptable client), and of course, don't forget, they had a lot of publicity from previous games (the warcraft series, diablo, starcraft and lost vikings), and those WERE innovative in a great deal.
Still, talking about WoW, I think they really should talk about success, not innovation. Because it was more advertisement, more strategy and more publicity behind the success of WoW, than innovation.
Face it: Most Innovation comes from innovative and creative minds, which are not bound to deadlines or sallaries. Innovation was to include a modding engine in HalfLife, which kept a very bad coded game alive until CounterStrike came out (so innovation lead to innovation). Innovation was to include a Level Editor and Sound Editor in Warcraft2, which made the game popular for custom maps, and in WC3, innovation from the _users_ has lead to a lot of custom maps, like tower defense or dota (because the game was very scriptable and moddable). WoW lacks all those opportunities of customization and blizzard has hunted down any modding scene from the beginning, who tried to do something else, than interface scripts (which are limited in innovative ideas), like emulator software (but that is perfectly understandable! emulators are bad for business!).
Because the userbase can't contribute a lot of new ideas, and because the game itself has very few "new elements" at all, but sums up all the other MMOGs before it, I simply can't accept blizzard as teacher in innovation, regarding WoW.
Somehow the statement for me depends on wrong and right.
"wrong target" for me means, that morally, the creator should not be blamed for creating a piece of software which can help you in a specifical task, even if this task may be unmoral. it is like suing weapons producers for making wars. of course on a high-moral ground, we can debate this otherwise, but with high-moral ground i mean idealistic morality, which has more to do with world-view and beliefs.
so of course, strategically it is the right target to catch the dealer of something illegal. if it IS illegal. otherwise, you HAVE TO catch the customers, which are the USERS of the program.
you can't destroy cigarette companies, to free all smokers, because nicotine is legal. on the other hand, you have to catch the dealer of pot, because pot is illegal.
for legal stuff (even wow) the customers are responsible for USING them. blizzard claims bots play longer, but maybe somebody has, whatever, disabilities and is very fond of his bot program, because it helps him catching up with his friends - and he does not let the bot run longer, than he plays. so we see, it depends on the usage of the tool, the tool is not used to attack the server and is not performing illegal tasks per se (maybe it does, but from what i see it does not, or blizzard would sue for other reasons)
this makes the programmer morally the wrong target. and also legally the wrong target. if blizzard succeeds in this, it may be fair on high-moral ground, but absolutely injust in terms of justice for all the other developers on the world creating little tools.
it is of course the right target strategically (and i think you meant that), but this again will make the whole move "evil", since they DO attack the wrong target (legally, morally), even if their motives and anger may be understandable in some way (high-moral).
Well, it was very common some years ago to run around with floppy disks instead of networking. was kinda scary. we also used gloomy beepy sounds to get into the internet.
Seriously: What we now find like a living fossil, was also pretty common in the east-block of europe until the very late 80's, they were carrying disks around between C64 computers - since access to newer hardware was hard, and expensive for most companies. so basically "ethernet" was a guy in the basement.
it all changed with the fall of communism. well not in cuba. i dont think it's because of communism itself, it could have been different, if there would have been computer development in the russian influenced countries, too. in a way "internet" is also a very good tool for propaganda...
gladly, we are free of this. okay, but now i have to go, my deathclock is running, my date of death coming nearer and nearer, and i haven't found all my classmates yet...
what I really find interesting, is the claim, that sourcecode may be n-dimensional in the future. Actually, this is the most important aspect of the whole 3d excel show, and should have been mentioned in the article abstract, because it's a thought on programming itself.
While I don't really know if I would agree on this "breakthrough of programming style", it is interesting to read it on pages 4 and 5 of the article.
I wished some comments would have commented on that.
I myself find code to be standing on different positions on the screen not very unusual, since it will be executed "one after the other" anyway, and is common in GUI/java development to have more than one window open. But if the code is not just "displayed" next to each other, and it has some new sense to arrange it like excel does, it might be interesting in the future (especially now on the edge of leaping into mainstream multiprocessor development)
actually I work a lot with business students, and (at least in academic circles in Vienna) it's different (from my POV): most people ask me, if I boot my laptop in front of them*, if I am using that "ubuntu thing". Some of them never heard linux before, or just read it somewhere as a word. but many more seem to know ubuntu!
I also have to do with a lot of students from the states, or different countries (since vienna business school is one major destination for most exchange students in the business sector) and I also experienced this a lot with them.
It was a topic not long ago with colleagues, and they shared the same experience. we were all together puzzled about this phenomenon.
my conclusion: ubuntu is in fact a very well known word in the world. also mostly for non-linux-users. and I thought otherwise. maybe it is only the experience we had from other words (alongsided with some disappointment) like linux, which leads us to the conclusion, that nobody knows "this or that", so we might not emphasize the true spreading of some special vocabulary
it is however of course not that famous as google. and of course we will never know for sure, but somebody feel free to make a study about it, it is a good theme for a diploma;)
Even if I agree with you in certain terms (e.g. less educated or cultivated people not being less intelligent), I still wouldn't dismiss the article's quintessence.
My thoughts: and please, since my english isn't quite native, sorry if some sentences may be confusing, just read over and guess what i mean
Preamble: I use intellectual gifted people as extreme example of high intelligence, but that doesn't mean, I only call this certain type of intelligence "more intelligent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness
First: Being bright and having a great deal of realisation, abstraction, association or analytical benefits (which are many, while not all, aspects of intelligence), doesn't mean, you reach the same goals with it as any other. If you are smart, but grow up in an environment, which doesn't push your skill in being smart, you don't get smarter, since your gifts are not attended to. This means, cultivation and education has something to do with increasing odds to create broad-horizoned and educated people, but it doesn't guarantee you more (as in quantity) intelligent people.
Being intelligent can also give you a great deal of trouble; intellectually gifted persons tend to solve problems by explanation rather than confrontation. Imagine intelligent people amongst cavemen, where strength is primary goal in life.
Being intelligent and having the wrong surroundings (no benefit from being educated, different goals when you grow up, less education oriented paradigms) leaves you as intelligent person like a burning candle without air.
Also, you need social attendance, since you are a "thinker", and with this, your social skills have to be developed by "loring you out of your thinktank".
Without this, you waste computational power to daily problems - and start getting quite depressed.
From my point of view you can't separate intelligence and rate it on an "as is" basis. Very intelligent people can be less cultivated, but with cultivation, they may use their potential in a greater aspect. And with cultivation I mean knowing things about the world not certainly bound to one topic, like, who was W. Shakespeare and speak other languages.
Also, a cultivated surrounding challenges the people to develop their intellectual skills, just as money can make your life easier.
Second: intelligence doesn't make you a good scientist. Learning and Working does. Intellectually gifted persons e.g. can be often misunderstood as slow learners, because they don't focus their attention to one subject so easily. But in the end, they might make better scientists, because they try to extend the theories they are working on by own ideas, pushing creativity.
To the topic: if you try to create nanotechnology, and you have a lot of people with intellectual potential to actually go into this subject, and have bright ideas, you need a sophisticated education system, which guarantees you:
a) education in specialization (e.g. computer science, nanotechnology...)
b) cultivation (to broaden your horizon)
c) educated teachers who can judge your intellectual structure and attend to it like you need it (otherwise you only push people who can learn a lot, not think a lot)
Especially learning other languages affects your thinking patterns a lot. I can tell that from experience, no matter what studies may say (luckily they don't contradict me), since I speak Hungarian and German, and a little bit of English and French.
Final note: I doubt being China more successful atm. in nanotechnology. They might have the intellectual power, but are they more cultivated? Do they have the same educational benefits? I don't think so, but honestly, I lack education about this topic.
But I don't doubt, that the mentioned article doesn't show us, that the States could do better in education, to leverage their inspirational force and leap forward in technology faster; sooner or later, China may catch up and m
in every single cell of a woman, one X is partly deactivated per default. so a woman has partly X chromosomes in her body active by her father and partly by her mother, while the X chromosome in standard XY men is always the X chromosome by the mother.
because of that i dont see any difference in normal genetics: if a mother has one X from her mother and the other from her father the son of her has one X from her, which could be from her mother (and in this case "female") the daughter of her son has her X (which is his X) and the X from his wife, which would lead to two "female X"es. this means, that there is no "male X chromosome" per default in my understanding.
Actually, you always dream, but you don't always remember dreams. So you can't state, you dont dream. Normally you spend about 2 hours dreaming while you sleep, and dreams often last only some minutes (thats why dream "topics" change so often)
And even, if you do remember a dream, they fade away in minutes after you wake up. You can even check this, if you try to write things down you remember after waking up, and later try to recall it: even after one hour your scriblings about the dream could not make sense anymore, and you can not recall pictures or events in the dream, even if you could remember them clearly after waking up.
If you would not dream, that would mean, you would not enter REM cycles, which would indicate, that your sleep would not be healthy.
A "bad sleep" is characterized by not entering REM sleep, because of waking up too often. REM sleep needs up tp 4 hours typically to manifest (but can earlier, e.g. 1 1/2 hours). thats why 4-5 hours of sleep is recommended.
sleeping often but shortly doesnt "reboot" your emotional layer, you get agitated, nervous, angry, so we learned in university.
remembering a dream often results because you wake up "in the middle of it", which could indicate a bad sleep. dreams that threaten you, or are "vivid" occur only in REM phases, but you even dream in non-REM phases.
the problem with sleeping pills abuse e.g. is the absence (mostly lesser occurance) of REM sleep, which has the same side symptoms like the lack of it. (and the side effects also can increase amnesia normally, so you even dont remember if you woke up a lot in the night)
Slashdot Mirror
does that mean, i am a superbrained smartass, if i can trilanguate every word, since i speak at least three languages fluently, and my mindvoctionary is increasable by having enough fantastination to invent new meanforms for words?
very awooting and quite reljoyaxing.
my IQ is endless.
the first question i got was:
.... [SQL: INSERT INTO IQLeague.dbo.UserAndGroup (AuthSignature, Email ... VALUES (... so on so on
could not insert: [IQLeague.BusinessLayer.User
and i could not answer it, even if i KNEW its a database error.
True and valid point.
/.)
But it is discrimination *g*
You can't just take more money from ethnic group A, just because it is said, they drive faster and so on.
You can't take more money from sex 2, just because some statistics say sex 2 does this and that.
however what you can do is take more money overall and putting people into risk based groups after watching their behaviour. this is how you should run an insurance company.
it's about equal chance.
especially if genes may say much less than we sometimes expect, about real risks
having genes of a murderer may never make you murder anybody. it is more or less a hype around genes. i heard some great philosophical biologist say, "it's not the genes we should be afraid of. genes mutate slowly and influence in great combinations, but mostly very lettly. it's behaviour and morality we should be concerned about. it mutates fast and has terrible influence" (free citation, forgotten his name, sry
smoking (the ACT) is not a desease, however nicotine addiction IS.
because nicotine is a DRUG - a legal one - and drug addiction is a desease
you can look that up.
what you seek for is "genetic disorder" or "non-idiopathic-desease". but they are hardly the ones we are afraid of if we talk about gene-disorders. because the ones we get "without our help in life" are coming anyway and will classify us anyway in some sort of way. somebody who is born diabetic, will be diabetic.
this is not the real issue, when it comes to be afraid of genetic maps, its more or like the genes, which can cause disorders "with a chance".
nicotine addiction is an idiopathic desease, and you can get it by inhaling nicotine passively or actively, however you can have genes which provoke you to be more addicted or less addicted. so the addiction itself is NOT completely behaviour.
you can't entirely blame people for their addiction. as with any idiopathic deseases, you can get it by external influences. you can get heartdesease by having not enough exercise and eating a lot of fat, you can get diabetes by eating a lot of sugar - but you don't have to.
most genetic disorders would classify you to hold a certain diet just to "minimize" the risk of being ill. the risk of getting addicted to cigarettes may forbid certain people to smoke, while others can do it, because they can't get addicted, so their risk of getting lung cancer stays low.
some people may go and eat sugar and fat, others dont. even if the genes never kick in, and the one smoking one cigarette a year may get lung cancer and the chainsmoker dont, or somebody without genetic abnormalities getting diabetes while not eating much sugar, and somebody else eating a lot of sugar AND having risky genes may never develop the syndrome, chances are only chances, and you should not classify people by uncertain things.
being classified by "chances" is highly unmoral. and that's what is heating the issue, not whether some deseases are more "your own fault" than the others.
heroine addiction is a desease, like gaming addiction or addiction to sport.
being addicted IS always a DISORDER
try somebody, who has addictive genes, or has made through nicotine or other highly addictive substances (nicotine is one of the WORST by the way, even worse than alcohol to get rid off) say in the face he was not ill. well. I wish you never live through that, it IS hell.
and smoking is not a behaviour. if it would be, people who want to stop, could just stop.
After all, with a userbase of ten million, the nation of Azeroth explicitly using LUA in their 3d Webbrowser it should count for something!?
I expected a lot of books written about it for now, with about 100 pages and 40 pages of them containing high-performance graphs screenshotted from "the game" itself, adressing important scientific issues like:
"Increase Output and Minimize Input - A Warriors Guide"
"The Right Array Management and Database Access for Spambots"
"Multiple Transfer and Transaction Management for Traders" (with chinese intro)
"Hardware Process Automation to optimize a Pointing Device"
"Colored Interface Design for Orcs"
"Nightelves Guide to Arithmetic Trees - Solving the Bagpack Problem" (with an approach to world travel solutions)
"Developing Daemons" (with an example of a cronjob to remind you to go to sleep before you die)
To what does that leave python as fcgi replacement for PHP?
does the locking issue present disadvantages to Python after all?
because i was thinking, suggesting people to make their webpages in python rather than PHP was a good idea, not just in performance, but also in code maintabality. AFAIK in fcgi only one instance of the interpreter is running, so this would cause slowdowns after all?
or as scripting language for servers?
given you have an online server for a lot of users (around 300, like the game server for a mmog), and needs to be scripted, and could be written in C# or in C++/Python, which would be the choice here? would thread-lock make it slower in python?
my experience is, that a software written in C# is hell of a fast in allocating a lot of "items" (objects) and dont cause "server slowdowns" in complex operations, however, it is constantly slower than the C++/python counterpart at the first glimpse.
it would honestly interest me, even if the question seems weird.
actually i got very used to the nipple, because if you write, its just some centimeters away.
I even use the nipple, if my mouse is with me. e.g. to move away the mouse cursor from text, or to touch the side of the screen with the mouse to have some menus popping out, or mostly, to position my mouse into the text to write somewhere else, because its easier, when you dont have to stop writing just because of that, aand the nipple is very good for fast mouse actions.
i wouldn't say the nipple is useless. however, it lacks the scrollwheel and the superior finetuning of a mouse, that's why a mouse is a must.
i dont like touchpads however, because i touch them when i am writing or clicking accidently on them... which is annoying if i just "drag and drop" files around while i am only supposed to move the mouse. I am one, who will never get used to touchpads i think.
You created me, Microsoft
So I guess you're to blame
For the "love" that I feel
Just from hearing your name
You're as open as future
And warm as pastell
*windows dings*
I wuv my OOXML
Just remember... there was a time, when ATi didn't provide open drivers, nor specifications...
I always had the feeling, they open their specs, because they can't hold up with nvidia and closed source driver development...
and until today, I still prefer nVidia with closed source drivers over ATi with open drivers on my desktop...
even if nvidia has glitches with rects/shadows in opengl sometimes, and leaves nice grey stripes on my desktop with compiz (something which happened in windows too some time ago), the 3d, playback, 2d and so on work greatly and fast!
The closed ATi drivers don't offer everything, and the open ones cause Xv+kaffeine to crash my XServer from time to time, or have mouse cursor problems, and I have to tweak around all the time... so with ATi I can switch between performance+bugs and slowness+stability, in nvidia i have to install closed drivers from time to time but it is fast and stable... I prefer second option.
But that might change in future, of course.
But I wouldnt depict nVidia as evil, just because ATi (which was less supportive to linux) now opens its driverbase.
I for one welcome the mighty year of linux!
At last! My CHIP Magazine from 1998 is still right - TEN YEARS LATER!
I admit, I would want to rant about their success. Is it jealousy? Maybe. But let's keep that aside for a moment.
They talk about innovation.
Nearly every aspect of World Of Warcraft is stolen from other games.
Example: UO. You can find a lot of similarities, from mounts to gray death screen. UO still has features, WoW hasn't. But most importantly: UO takes a lot of innovation from the so called freeshard-scene, and i think, this is also the reason origin never pursued those emulated servers in the first place.
E.g. the speech system which does not allow you to read other's language is something which was developed on UO roleplaying shards (as for I know, but it could have been also in some MUDs) - so it is not new in WoW.
So, why is WoW still better than the other mmogs? well, let's face it: it is because they took all the good things and tinkered it to something better.
So, yes, they are successful. And yes, they can talk about how to get successful, how to keep successful.
However, I rant, because it is not innovation, they should talk about. There is hardly any great innovation in WoW from my perspective.
It's a fun game, trying to suit the majority of players, the company cares for the players, they did some good decisions (e.g. low hardware specs, scriptable client), and of course, don't forget, they had a lot of publicity from previous games (the warcraft series, diablo, starcraft and lost vikings), and those WERE innovative in a great deal.
Still, talking about WoW, I think they really should talk about success, not innovation. Because it was more advertisement, more strategy and more publicity behind the success of WoW, than innovation.
Face it: Most Innovation comes from innovative and creative minds, which are not bound to deadlines or sallaries. Innovation was to include a modding engine in HalfLife, which kept a very bad coded game alive until CounterStrike came out (so innovation lead to innovation). Innovation was to include a Level Editor and Sound Editor in Warcraft2, which made the game popular for custom maps, and in WC3, innovation from the _users_ has lead to a lot of custom maps, like tower defense or dota (because the game was very scriptable and moddable). WoW lacks all those opportunities of customization and blizzard has hunted down any modding scene from the beginning, who tried to do something else, than interface scripts (which are limited in innovative ideas), like emulator software (but that is perfectly understandable! emulators are bad for business!).
Because the userbase can't contribute a lot of new ideas, and because the game itself has very few "new elements" at all, but sums up all the other MMOGs before it, I simply can't accept blizzard as teacher in innovation, regarding WoW.
ISO isn't the authority for what format is best
as we have seen, it isn't
The desktop software on 95% of computers won't read ODF and never will.
well now, that's the problem with ooxml becoming iso, isn't it? now it will stay this way.
while i agree with your critics in some level, it IS a black wednesday.
Somehow the statement for me depends on wrong and right.
"wrong target" for me means, that morally, the creator should not be blamed for creating a piece of software which can help you in a specifical task, even if this task may be unmoral.
it is like suing weapons producers for making wars. of course on a high-moral ground, we can debate this otherwise, but with high-moral ground i mean idealistic morality, which has more to do with world-view and beliefs.
so of course, strategically it is the right target to catch the dealer of something illegal. if it IS illegal.
otherwise, you HAVE TO catch the customers, which are the USERS of the program.
you can't destroy cigarette companies, to free all smokers, because nicotine is legal.
on the other hand, you have to catch the dealer of pot, because pot is illegal.
for legal stuff (even wow) the customers are responsible for USING them. blizzard claims bots play longer, but maybe somebody has, whatever, disabilities and is very fond of his bot program, because it helps him catching up with his friends - and he does not let the bot run longer, than he plays. so we see, it depends on the usage of the tool, the tool is not used to attack the server and is not performing illegal tasks per se (maybe it does, but from what i see it does not, or blizzard would sue for other reasons)
this makes the programmer morally the wrong target. and also legally the wrong target.
if blizzard succeeds in this, it may be fair on high-moral ground, but absolutely injust in terms of justice for all the other developers on the world creating little tools.
it is of course the right target strategically (and i think you meant that), but this again will make the whole move "evil", since they DO attack the wrong target (legally, morally), even if their motives and anger may be understandable in some way (high-moral).
Well, it was very common some years ago to run around with floppy disks instead of networking. was kinda scary. we also used gloomy beepy sounds to get into the internet.
Seriously: What we now find like a living fossil, was also pretty common in the east-block of europe until the very late 80's, they were carrying disks around between C64 computers - since access to newer hardware was hard, and expensive for most companies.
so basically "ethernet" was a guy in the basement.
it all changed with the fall of communism. well not in cuba.
i dont think it's because of communism itself, it could have been different, if there would have been computer development in the russian influenced countries, too. in a way "internet" is also a very good tool for propaganda...
gladly, we are free of this. okay, but now i have to go, my deathclock is running, my date of death coming nearer and nearer, and i haven't found all my classmates yet...
what I really find interesting, is the claim, that sourcecode may be n-dimensional in the future. Actually, this is the most important aspect of the whole 3d excel show, and should have been mentioned in the article abstract, because it's a thought on programming itself.
While I don't really know if I would agree on this "breakthrough of programming style", it is interesting to read it on pages 4 and 5 of the article.
I wished some comments would have commented on that.
I myself find code to be standing on different positions on the screen not very unusual, since it will be executed "one after the other" anyway, and is common in GUI/java development to have more than one window open. But if the code is not just "displayed" next to each other, and it has some new sense to arrange it like excel does, it might be interesting in the future (especially now on the edge of leaping into mainstream multiprocessor development)
actually I work a lot with business students, and (at least in academic circles in Vienna) it's different (from my POV): most people ask me, if I boot my laptop in front of them*, if I am using that "ubuntu thing". Some of them never heard linux before, or just read it somewhere as a word. but many more seem to know ubuntu!
;)
I also have to do with a lot of students from the states, or different countries (since vienna business school is one major destination for most exchange students in the business sector) and I also experienced this a lot with them.
It was a topic not long ago with colleagues, and they shared the same experience. we were all together puzzled about this phenomenon.
my conclusion: ubuntu is in fact a very well known word in the world. also mostly for non-linux-users. and I thought otherwise. maybe it is only the experience we had from other words (alongsided with some disappointment) like linux, which leads us to the conclusion, that nobody knows "this or that", so we might not emphasize the true spreading of some special vocabulary
it is however of course not that famous as google.
and of course we will never know for sure, but somebody feel free to make a study about it, it is a good theme for a diploma
*) Yeah, posing in a nerd stylish way of course.
Even if I agree with you in certain terms (e.g. less educated or cultivated people not being less intelligent), I still wouldn't dismiss the article's quintessence. My thoughts: and please, since my english isn't quite native, sorry if some sentences may be confusing, just read over and guess what i mean
Preamble: I use intellectual gifted people as extreme example of high intelligence, but that doesn't mean, I only call this certain type of intelligence "more intelligent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness First: Being bright and having a great deal of realisation, abstraction, association or analytical benefits (which are many, while not all, aspects of intelligence), doesn't mean, you reach the same goals with it as any other. If you are smart, but grow up in an environment, which doesn't push your skill in being smart, you don't get smarter, since your gifts are not attended to. This means, cultivation and education has something to do with increasing odds to create broad-horizoned and educated people, but it doesn't guarantee you more (as in quantity) intelligent people.
Being intelligent can also give you a great deal of trouble; intellectually gifted persons tend to solve problems by explanation rather than confrontation. Imagine intelligent people amongst cavemen, where strength is primary goal in life.
Being intelligent and having the wrong surroundings (no benefit from being educated, different goals when you grow up, less education oriented paradigms) leaves you as intelligent person like a burning candle without air. Also, you need social attendance, since you are a "thinker", and with this, your social skills have to be developed by "loring you out of your thinktank".
Without this, you waste computational power to daily problems - and start getting quite depressed.
From my point of view you can't separate intelligence and rate it on an "as is" basis. Very intelligent people can be less cultivated, but with cultivation, they may use their potential in a greater aspect. And with cultivation I mean knowing things about the world not certainly bound to one topic, like, who was W. Shakespeare and speak other languages.
Also, a cultivated surrounding challenges the people to develop their intellectual skills, just as money can make your life easier.
Second: intelligence doesn't make you a good scientist. Learning and Working does. Intellectually gifted persons e.g. can be often misunderstood as slow learners, because they don't focus their attention to one subject so easily. But in the end, they might make better scientists, because they try to extend the theories they are working on by own ideas, pushing creativity.
To the topic: if you try to create nanotechnology, and you have a lot of people with intellectual potential to actually go into this subject, and have bright ideas, you need a sophisticated education system, which guarantees you:
a) education in specialization (e.g. computer science, nanotechnology...)
b) cultivation (to broaden your horizon)
c) educated teachers who can judge your intellectual structure and attend to it like you need it (otherwise you only push people who can learn a lot, not think a lot)
Especially learning other languages affects your thinking patterns a lot. I can tell that from experience, no matter what studies may say (luckily they don't contradict me), since I speak Hungarian and German, and a little bit of English and French.
Final note: I doubt being China more successful atm. in nanotechnology. They might have the intellectual power, but are they more cultivated? Do they have the same educational benefits? I don't think so, but honestly, I lack education about this topic.
But I don't doubt, that the mentioned article doesn't show us, that the States could do better in education, to leverage their inspirational force and leap forward in technology faster; sooner or later, China may catch up and m
I heard it has a gigantic sign on it for chuck norris:
"In cases of emergency, feel free to break out titanium wired plexiglass"
in every single cell of a woman, one X is partly deactivated per default.
so a woman has partly X chromosomes in her body active by her father and partly by her mother, while the X chromosome in standard XY men is always the X chromosome by the mother.
because of that i dont see any difference in normal genetics:
if a mother has one X from her mother and the other from her father
the son of her has one X from her, which could be from her mother (and in this case "female")
the daughter of her son has her X (which is his X) and the X from his wife, which would lead to two "female X"es.
this means, that there is no "male X chromosome" per default in my understanding.
trans-gender-men could make eggs out of their bone marrow
or sperm.
confusing.
hello missis "i am my own mother"
Pictures sent in Messenger appear sometimes like craters in my kopete, too. Very disturbing.
Miss Lippenreider : Scream. Scream. Help me! Do not pull my arm!
... it is a clear sign of Oedipus Complex in that family.
Now I understand, why every Windows is always afraid giving away any USB Stick.
Actually, you always dream, but you don't always remember dreams. So you can't state, you dont dream. Normally you spend about 2 hours dreaming while you sleep, and dreams often last only some minutes (thats why dream "topics" change so often)
And even, if you do remember a dream, they fade away in minutes after you wake up. You can even check this, if you try to write things down you remember after waking up, and later try to recall it: even after one hour your scriblings about the dream could not make sense anymore, and you can not recall pictures or events in the dream, even if you could remember them clearly after waking up.
If you would not dream, that would mean, you would not enter REM cycles, which would indicate, that your sleep would not be healthy.
A "bad sleep" is characterized by not entering REM sleep, because of waking up too often. REM sleep needs up tp 4 hours typically to manifest (but can earlier, e.g. 1 1/2 hours). thats why 4-5 hours of sleep is recommended.
sleeping often but shortly doesnt "reboot" your emotional layer, you get agitated, nervous, angry, so we learned in university.
remembering a dream often results because you wake up "in the middle of it", which could indicate a bad sleep. dreams that threaten you, or are "vivid" occur only in REM phases, but you even dream in non-REM phases.
the problem with sleeping pills abuse e.g. is the absence (mostly lesser occurance) of REM sleep, which has the same side symptoms like the lack of it. (and the side effects also can increase amnesia normally, so you even dont remember if you woke up a lot in the night)