Ummm, you say "It's not about idioms. It's about meaning," and then explain how it's about context. It's all about context. Context is key and why words pulled out of context have different meaning. It's also why people who are philologists or armchair philologists enjoy the Darmok episode. To bash that episode only proves how little someone actually knows about language, culture and meaning, the basis of context. The worst episodes of TNG are like the worst of any screenwriting. Most of the 24x7 (that's 24 episodes by 7 seasons) were very well written, some not so much. Hey, even the best home run hitter strikes out every now and then, but you don't poo-poo his career because he had seven strike outs and 120 home runs.
Can we get slashdot off Musk's nutsack please? This nutswinging on Musk and Tesla is the greatest car ever is horseshit is getting old. Now he's changing the design great, work the problem Elon. Let us all know when your cars don't catch fire from just sitting there.
What? Like a Porsche GT3? You speak as if gas powered vehicles don't randomly catch fire all the time, and nobody says boo. Troll.
The other fire involved tripping over a 50 pound metal spike at 70mph, causing it to upend violently and drive itself through the underside of the car with the force of a cannon.
Actually, it was a three-ball commercial trailer hitch that was in the road and got flipped up under the car when the driver tried to avoid it. http://www.teslamotors.com/blo...
I had it explained this way: "Carbon fiber is great in the X and Y axis of the weave. Not so much the Z axis." So, yeah, hitting a carbon fiber structure with a rock perpendicular to the weave will damage (possibly destroy) the carbon fiber structure. They don't layer and epoxy coat them for looks.
You know, I usually detest any sort of PR speak. That sort of bullshit where they desperately try to spin negative news to their advantage. It's just something I've come to expect from corporations and politicians.
But this?
Can we please move to the post-bullshit era where authenticity is expected?
Musk offered this amusing example: '... This happened after the vehicle impacted a roundabout at 110 mph, shearing off 15 feet of concrete curbwall and tearing off the left front wheel, then smashing through an eight foot tall buttressed concrete wall on the other side of the road and tearing off the right front wheel, before crashing into a tree.
Hilarious!
And amazing the idiot survived. Should have been a Darwin award winner for sure. Testament to how tough that Model S really is, even before the added stuff.
We're here dealing in the realm of engineering + political risk = decisions.
There is a risk, but you can't say it was an engineering risk and just a political one.
I wouldn't even say it was political. This is merely dealing with stupid. It's Tesla's fault that there was a fire after the incident described in Mexico? Puh-lease! The trailer hitch thing in Tennessee was even a fluke accident that could have easily ruptured a fuel line under the car and caused a fire if it was a gas powered vehicle. That kind of thing is just plain rare no matter what. My concern at this point is how much range was lost because of safety features added to the vehicle because of these incidents. I would imagine a few tens of miles. At least the vehicle is getting even safer and further outpacing its fossil fuel brethren for safety. Consumer Reports may have to go to 11 for this car with the added safety features.
It's more simple than that. Another case of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... aka bad posts from a bad author who consistently posts complete fucking garbage.
Brought to you by the same people responsible for the redressing of/. Also, complete fucking garbage.
A lot of companies/users don't want to change because they see no additional benefit to do a costly upgrade, no reason to change a running system, and they may in some cases be right with their assumptions.
How about this one. All of your software options are better on 7 than XP. Firefox and Chrome are moving away from supporting it. Microsoft is moving away from supporting it too. You know what that means, Mr. Super Conservative Executive/IT guy? It means your threat vectors are now starting to approach "everything installed on this workstation" instead of just the OS.
You've never worked with specialized equipment that costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars have you? Either that or you work for a DoE lab with deep pockets. Businesses, universities and private research labs usually don't get to replace equipment costing that much on a four to five year cycle. They get the equipment and use it until it just flat out doesn't work anymore then they spend the money to get something new. If the machine that interfaces with the equipment requires a 16-bit DOS or older version of Windows and has a proprietary dongle or need for some 16-bit ISA card then that's what stays. You buy replacement computers that will support the equipment at auction or on eBay and you keep the thing running. If the equipment can still be used, you use it. Like was said above, the computer's only job is to interface with the equipment. It's not networked, doesn't need to be. Modern malware can't effect it because it won't run on it, dummies! You can't run 32-/64-bit malware on a 16-bit machine! XP maybe, but there are very good ways around the security issues. You don't obsolete $250,000 plus machine that still gets used because the OS needed to interface with it is "old". Why is this so hard for some people to understand? You just don't treat capital expenses like that unless you have a ridiculous amount of money to burn. There really isn't a good analogy for this. It is what it is. I am sure you know the common euphemism, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That saying isn't just a saying, just like stereotypes exist because there are people that fit them.
As a scientist you seem naive to the personal gains from the work that is done. This "scientist" fraudulently published results and gained public and private research dollars for it. That's a crime not science. You don't have to be a scientist to do good science but you do have to rigorously follow the scientific method. Clearly, the "scientist" in question needs to go back to school and learn that. Perhaps jail time will afford them the opportunity, because taking hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to produce fraud is a crime NOT SCIENCE.
Ok, you obviously know very little about how academia works. If a researcher publishes something, they get credit for it and gain personally in many ways. They may receive an advanced degree and go out to a high paying job. They may gain greater academic standing by being promoted which brings money in the form of increased research and salary dollars. If that information is false then they personally gained by trickery and/or deceit. That's a crime. That's fraud and NOT SCIENCE.
If the fraud is in some boring, uninteresting area that never gets noticed, then it doesn't matter because it affects no one.
Whoa, brakes! That's the victimless crime argument and there is no such thing. That's like saying if I steal apples from an orchard and nobody notices there is no crime. Bullshit. You're still committing a crime whether you get caught or not. It's ok if someone personally benefits from fraud in your world as long as it "affects no one"? Wrong. It affects the whole of the scientific community when someone publishes false results. It in fact affects everyone.
I think the crux of it has been said above, but my $0.02:
Optimized
Well formatted
Commented in areas where reading the code isn't obvious to even the newest entrant into programming
Well supported by the author(s) or corporation that produced it
I will also admit that I don't write a lot of elegant code, because I usually don't have the time to fully optimize it. But most of my code is well formatted, commented and supported.
Because unlike your latest Call of Duty download, hunting doesn't consist of moving a mouse until the crosshairs are over the head. It's an entire process.
Yeah, bad anaolgy/false equivalency. Hunting requires several things, license, gun, ammo, tree stand, location scouting and the ability to sit on your ass for several hours at a time. Yeah, real strenuous "sport". It's not a sport, sorry. It's one of two things: a for-food necessity or a conservation act. To call it a sport is a joke. Hell, most people don't even hike to scout anymore, they use four wheelers, so again, where's the "sport" activity that would qualify hunting? I have been around hunting and hunters all my life. My uncles and cousins all hunt deer and turkey and a lot of my friends and acquaintances hunt. Most of them are athletic but hunting is not how they work out nor would they categorize hunting as a sport (see above). If you're not hunting for food then you are participating in a leisure activity or game--not a sport. That's why it's called "game hunting". Sport fishing is another one of those iffy classifications. I don't have to be in shape to fish either. Sports usually have a physical fitness requirement. Hunting, not so much. If you're breathing and can pull a trigger, you're good.
Actually, you might be surprised how much of the US population still hunts for food. Granted these are generally poor rural people and thus are poorly represented on the internet and media so they are somewhat invisible, but there is a significant number of them spread around the country and they hunt more frequently then the recreational crowd.
Define significant? I was unable to find any data on an estimated number, either. I would guess based on Census data that it's less than 0.1% of the U.S. population, or less than 350,000 people nationwide. That's a conservative estimate based on populations below poverty level in rural areas. It's probably much, much smaller in reality.
It's decentralized. There's no controlling entity that can tell you who you can or cannot pay.
Another thing it allows you to do is change which company you use for payments, and yet still make payments to all the same people you could before. If you want to buy something from somebody that uses Paypal to take payments, then you're kinda stuck with using Paypal. With a Bitcoin-based system, you could pay them via a different company.
This is like asking "what's the point of SMTP when we have Gmail?"
I have a bank account and bill pay. The bank account comes with a Visa debit card that is accepted everywhere Visa is for payment and my bank offers bill pay services via ACH transfer. BitCoin cannot do either without additional hoops or places that could add attack vectors to my finances. You're twisting yourself in knots trying to justify something that just isn't better for payments unless you're buying illegal goods. Cash is also perfectly anonymous.
Classifying something as a Ponzi scheme, usually involves outright fraud. ie someone is claiming that there is a huge pile of cash somewhere that doesn't actually exist.
What, like MtGox? I will say this. BitCoin in and of itself may not be a Ponzi scheme, but it sure is a mighty fine developers kit and sandbox for one. It has way too much in common for it to be used by much of anyone other than as a mechanism to create a Ponzi. Plus, add the fact that it is unregulated and you add a dimension for nefarious activity nonexistent in any other legal financial instrument today. The foundation of this wanna-be currency is flawed and fracturing. It just wasn't as good an idea as it appeared to be in someone's head. Try again.
Sloppy thesis. My thesis had to pass review of my entire committee. They would not sign it until they had a chance to read it. I had to go through several edit cycels *after* I had been through a number of cycles by my primary adviser. Maybe I picked a hard committee, but an adviser or committee member who puts their name to sloppy research is damaging their credibility. At the time I thought it was torture, but now I appreciate the fact they wanted me to produce good research properly written up. Any adviser or committee who does otherwise is cheating the student out of an education.
You didn't pick a hard committee. You studied in a department that cared about the grad students they were sending into the world. The "Insightful" guy above obviously didn't.
When there is obvious chicanery involved and the experiments aren't reproducible, that is not science. Why does this story of science fiction get a science tag? It's not science if it's fake, folks. That's called fraud.
I will drink to that. ShockWave sucked, but I do wish they had kept Lingo. Was a good scripting language with an intuitive grammar and syntax. I did a lot of cool stuff with it in the 1990s.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, you say "It's not about idioms. It's about meaning," and then explain how it's about context. It's all about context. Context is key and why words pulled out of context have different meaning. It's also why people who are philologists or armchair philologists enjoy the Darmok episode. To bash that episode only proves how little someone actually knows about language, culture and meaning, the basis of context. The worst episodes of TNG are like the worst of any screenwriting. Most of the 24x7 (that's 24 episodes by 7 seasons) were very well written, some not so much. Hey, even the best home run hitter strikes out every now and then, but you don't poo-poo his career because he had seven strike outs and 120 home runs.
Get to be considered an Astrophysicist considering he only has a PhD in Philosophy?
You really aren't very smart are you? "Ph.D." = Doctor of Philosophy, duh. He has a Masters and a Ph.D. in astrophysics from Columbia University.
Can we get slashdot off Musk's nutsack please? This nutswinging on Musk and Tesla is the greatest car ever is horseshit is getting old. Now he's changing the design great, work the problem Elon. Let us all know when your cars don't catch fire from just sitting there.
What? Like a Porsche GT3? You speak as if gas powered vehicles don't randomly catch fire all the time, and nobody says boo. Troll.
The other fire involved tripping over a 50 pound metal spike at 70mph, causing it to upend violently and drive itself through the underside of the car with the force of a cannon.
Actually, it was a three-ball commercial trailer hitch that was in the road and got flipped up under the car when the driver tried to avoid it. http://www.teslamotors.com/blo...
I had it explained this way: "Carbon fiber is great in the X and Y axis of the weave. Not so much the Z axis." So, yeah, hitting a carbon fiber structure with a rock perpendicular to the weave will damage (possibly destroy) the carbon fiber structure. They don't layer and epoxy coat them for looks.
You know, I usually detest any sort of PR speak. That sort of bullshit where they desperately try to spin negative news to their advantage. It's just something I've come to expect from corporations and politicians.
But this?
Can we please move to the post-bullshit era where authenticity is expected?
Is Fox News gone yet? No? Keep waiting.
Hilarious!
And amazing the idiot survived. Should have been a Darwin award winner for sure. Testament to how tough that Model S really is, even before the added stuff.
We're here dealing in the realm of engineering + political risk = decisions.
There is a risk, but you can't say it was an engineering risk and just a political one.
I wouldn't even say it was political. This is merely dealing with stupid. It's Tesla's fault that there was a fire after the incident described in Mexico? Puh-lease! The trailer hitch thing in Tennessee was even a fluke accident that could have easily ruptured a fuel line under the car and caused a fire if it was a gas powered vehicle. That kind of thing is just plain rare no matter what. My concern at this point is how much range was lost because of safety features added to the vehicle because of these incidents. I would imagine a few tens of miles. At least the vehicle is getting even safer and further outpacing its fossil fuel brethren for safety. Consumer Reports may have to go to 11 for this car with the added safety features.
Everyone who uses Facebook seems to be in their own little self-centered world anyway. That's why they bought Oculus. It simply matches.
You got modded funny but I wonder how insightful that comment REALLY is.
It's even dumber than that. Google Glass doesn't 'overlay' anything. It's a screen above your field of view.
How do stories like this get approved?
All Dice crap is now slammed down our throats whether we vote for it or not. It bypasses the firehouse and pees directly on us.
It's more simple than that. Another case of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... aka bad posts from a bad author who consistently posts complete fucking garbage.
Brought to you by the same people responsible for the redressing of /. Also, complete fucking garbage.
How about this one. All of your software options are better on 7 than XP. Firefox and Chrome are moving away from supporting it. Microsoft is moving away from supporting it too. You know what that means, Mr. Super Conservative Executive/IT guy? It means your threat vectors are now starting to approach "everything installed on this workstation" instead of just the OS.
You've never worked with specialized equipment that costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars have you? Either that or you work for a DoE lab with deep pockets. Businesses, universities and private research labs usually don't get to replace equipment costing that much on a four to five year cycle. They get the equipment and use it until it just flat out doesn't work anymore then they spend the money to get something new. If the machine that interfaces with the equipment requires a 16-bit DOS or older version of Windows and has a proprietary dongle or need for some 16-bit ISA card then that's what stays. You buy replacement computers that will support the equipment at auction or on eBay and you keep the thing running. If the equipment can still be used, you use it. Like was said above, the computer's only job is to interface with the equipment. It's not networked, doesn't need to be. Modern malware can't effect it because it won't run on it, dummies! You can't run 32-/64-bit malware on a 16-bit machine! XP maybe, but there are very good ways around the security issues. You don't obsolete $250,000 plus machine that still gets used because the OS needed to interface with it is "old". Why is this so hard for some people to understand? You just don't treat capital expenses like that unless you have a ridiculous amount of money to burn. There really isn't a good analogy for this. It is what it is. I am sure you know the common euphemism, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That saying isn't just a saying, just like stereotypes exist because there are people that fit them.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
As a scientist you seem naive to the personal gains from the work that is done. This "scientist" fraudulently published results and gained public and private research dollars for it. That's a crime not science. You don't have to be a scientist to do good science but you do have to rigorously follow the scientific method. Clearly, the "scientist" in question needs to go back to school and learn that. Perhaps jail time will afford them the opportunity, because taking hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to produce fraud is a crime NOT SCIENCE.
Ok, you obviously know very little about how academia works. If a researcher publishes something, they get credit for it and gain personally in many ways. They may receive an advanced degree and go out to a high paying job. They may gain greater academic standing by being promoted which brings money in the form of increased research and salary dollars. If that information is false then they personally gained by trickery and/or deceit. That's a crime. That's fraud and NOT SCIENCE.
If the fraud is in some boring, uninteresting area that never gets noticed, then it doesn't matter because it affects no one.
Whoa, brakes! That's the victimless crime argument and there is no such thing. That's like saying if I steal apples from an orchard and nobody notices there is no crime. Bullshit. You're still committing a crime whether you get caught or not. It's ok if someone personally benefits from fraud in your world as long as it "affects no one"? Wrong. It affects the whole of the scientific community when someone publishes false results. It in fact affects everyone.
I think the crux of it has been said above, but my $0.02:
Optimized
Well formatted
Commented in areas where reading the code isn't obvious to even the newest entrant into programming
Well supported by the author(s) or corporation that produced it
I will also admit that I don't write a lot of elegant code, because I usually don't have the time to fully optimize it. But most of my code is well formatted, commented and supported.
Pity some of us haven't evolved more than that.
FTFY
Because unlike your latest Call of Duty download, hunting doesn't consist of moving a mouse until the crosshairs are over the head. It's an entire process.
Yeah, bad anaolgy/false equivalency. Hunting requires several things, license, gun, ammo, tree stand, location scouting and the ability to sit on your ass for several hours at a time. Yeah, real strenuous "sport". It's not a sport, sorry. It's one of two things: a for-food necessity or a conservation act. To call it a sport is a joke. Hell, most people don't even hike to scout anymore, they use four wheelers, so again, where's the "sport" activity that would qualify hunting? I have been around hunting and hunters all my life. My uncles and cousins all hunt deer and turkey and a lot of my friends and acquaintances hunt. Most of them are athletic but hunting is not how they work out nor would they categorize hunting as a sport (see above). If you're not hunting for food then you are participating in a leisure activity or game--not a sport. That's why it's called "game hunting". Sport fishing is another one of those iffy classifications. I don't have to be in shape to fish either. Sports usually have a physical fitness requirement. Hunting, not so much. If you're breathing and can pull a trigger, you're good.
Actually, you might be surprised how much of the US population still hunts for food. Granted these are generally poor rural people and thus are poorly represented on the internet and media so they are somewhat invisible, but there is a significant number of them spread around the country and they hunt more frequently then the recreational crowd.
Define significant? I was unable to find any data on an estimated number, either. I would guess based on Census data that it's less than 0.1% of the U.S. population, or less than 350,000 people nationwide. That's a conservative estimate based on populations below poverty level in rural areas. It's probably much, much smaller in reality.
It's decentralized. There's no controlling entity that can tell you who you can or cannot pay.
Another thing it allows you to do is change which company you use for payments, and yet still make payments to all the same people you could before. If you want to buy something from somebody that uses Paypal to take payments, then you're kinda stuck with using Paypal. With a Bitcoin-based system, you could pay them via a different company.
This is like asking "what's the point of SMTP when we have Gmail?"
I have a bank account and bill pay. The bank account comes with a Visa debit card that is accepted everywhere Visa is for payment and my bank offers bill pay services via ACH transfer. BitCoin cannot do either without additional hoops or places that could add attack vectors to my finances. You're twisting yourself in knots trying to justify something that just isn't better for payments unless you're buying illegal goods. Cash is also perfectly anonymous.
Classifying something as a Ponzi scheme, usually involves outright fraud. ie someone is claiming that there is a huge pile of cash somewhere that doesn't actually exist.
What, like MtGox? I will say this. BitCoin in and of itself may not be a Ponzi scheme, but it sure is a mighty fine developers kit and sandbox for one. It has way too much in common for it to be used by much of anyone other than as a mechanism to create a Ponzi. Plus, add the fact that it is unregulated and you add a dimension for nefarious activity nonexistent in any other legal financial instrument today. The foundation of this wanna-be currency is flawed and fracturing. It just wasn't as good an idea as it appeared to be in someone's head. Try again.
Sloppy thesis. My thesis had to pass review of my entire committee. They would not sign it until they had a chance to read it. I had to go through several edit cycels *after* I had been through a number of cycles by my primary adviser. Maybe I picked a hard committee, but an adviser or committee member who puts their name to sloppy research is damaging their credibility. At the time I thought it was torture, but now I appreciate the fact they wanted me to produce good research properly written up. Any adviser or committee who does otherwise is cheating the student out of an education.
You didn't pick a hard committee. You studied in a department that cared about the grad students they were sending into the world. The "Insightful" guy above obviously didn't.
When there is obvious chicanery involved and the experiments aren't reproducible, that is not science. Why does this story of science fiction get a science tag? It's not science if it's fake, folks. That's called fraud.
I will drink to that. ShockWave sucked, but I do wish they had kept Lingo. Was a good scripting language with an intuitive grammar and syntax. I did a lot of cool stuff with it in the 1990s.