Every element in the universe was created through fusion. It just starts with hydrogen and works its way up. I think hydrogen is also the easiest to get to fuse, but I'm not sure on that one.
I thought the whole point of Dr. Who was that the writers get to just make stuff up, no matter how implausible, and the fans get to spend the whole week finding ways to rationalize it all away. Then, next week, something implausible, compared to the previous implausibilities, occurs and the fans get to work even harder, rationalizing all that away and trying to force it all into some semblance of a continuous discontiguous narrative.
This gets repeated over and over in an exponentially increasing swirl of cognitive dissonance and rationalization until either: A) Said fan's head explodes, or B) Said fan becomes delusional, believing themselves to be a genius because he/she, and only he/she TRULY understands the hidden meaning of the show.
It doesn't even have to be an ideological stance. It's a matter of processing costs. Let the "forgetees" pay a nominal processing cost, and I wouldn't have as much of a problem.
Believe me, I know Google has gone "Full Microsoft" but I still think the idea of forcing a search engine COMPANY to filter out undesireable results is the start of a very slippery slope.
This is ridiculous. If the content is still out there, then Google, and all other search engines should index it. I can see asking them to not cache it, but to use stro,g-arm tactics to FORCE them to actively filter it out of results is, to my mind, a violation of their freedom of speech. Which SHOULD trump the freedom to F up and then hide it from the public.
Google and MS and all the other search engines should just threaten to pull out of the EU en mass rather than abide by this rediculous law.
It wouldn't surprise me if these forum members were just a few people hired by the education industrial complex (Pearson, et al) to intentionally spoil the experience for others.
So, I hope they aren't trying to patent too much of this idea. It's been prior art for 10 years. Here is a link to an archived version of my post: http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsg.... It is all I could find from my phone.
I don't mind them using the idea. I posted it publicly hoping someone would. But they can't claim to own the idea or prevent others from using it.
Agreed. The fact that they had to cite such an obviously flawed anecdotal example indicates to me that they have no real evidence to offer. It also gives me reason to doubt their motives. Learning to code does have obvious advantages in logical thinking, which people today could definitely stand more of. But the coding skills don't, in and of themselves, increase ability to learn or understand the humanities any more than writing skills do. It is only the fact that most writing assignments require students to write ABOUT the humanities that learning writing increases "ability to learn" about the humanities. If all writing assignments were about computer games, then the students would learn about computer games instead of the humanities. (Disregarding the fact that computer games will one day be considered a form of literature and the study of their literary and sociological impact will fall under the humanities.)
So I, too, believe there are profit motives in all of this push for more CS in the classroom. The corporations pushing this agenda may think it will create an army of cheap programmers. But did shop class (which we also need more of) create an army of cheap plummers? Instead, as another/.er has mentioned, it will only show that, even with training, there are only a certain proportion of people who will have the innate abilities and deep interest to become truly good (not even necessarily great) programmers. So let Google, et al create their education programs. It can only have the positive effect of exposing more girls and minorities to programming, thus bringing diversity to an industry that desperately needs it.
However, it is the second profit motive that has me concerned. Creating educational material and selling it to the states is a total cash cow for the educational content industry. The amount of money school districts funnel to these corporations for mediocre and unnecessary materials (in addition to textbooks) is staggering (sorry, I have no citations). If Google, et al, are trying to siphon even more of that money away from teacher's salaries and into their corporate pockets, then we have to fight against that. It is entirely possible to croudsource good educational content and provide it for free to everyone.
Free content and more money to pay teacher's qualified to teach CS, will get us all the good things Google, et al, claim we can get from teaching more CS in schools while eliminating or naturally avoiding all the bad things many/.ers are wailing about.
Everyone knows you will NEVER be able to remove all copies of anything from The Internet. Britain's and Americans just need to get over their insane habit of stigmatizing normal human behavior.
All of this depends on if the original creator of the joke is the person who originally tweeted it. On Twitter, there is an implied, if not explicitly stated, permission to re-use and recombine tweets. However, if the creator of the joke did not tweet it, then those who do tweet it may be violating copyright. Yes, everything you create is copyrighted as soon as you record it in some way. If others use that without your permission, either explicit or implied, then they are violating your copyright. Just because Twitter is based on copying doesn't mean it is inappropriate for them to protect the copyrights of works placed in their system by people other than the original creator.
Really, the simplistic view of the world taken by supposedly smart people on this site never fails to astound me.
I get almost all my slacks and dress-casual shirts at the Goodwill, or other thrift, store. I often find things that look as good as new for $2 - $5. Because the slacks are usually in better shape than the jeans in thrift stores, it is actually cheaper for me to wear dress casual.
Yes, and a human being CANNOT survive going over 20 mph and buggy whips are going to be in high demand forever. Besides, you can't get that nasty black stuff out of the ground without digging up half the countryside.
I can think of at least two methods to remove plastic from the oceans and I haven't even tried very hard. Someone will find a way.
Slashdot Mirror
Every element in the universe was created through fusion. It just starts with hydrogen and works its way up. I think hydrogen is also the easiest to get to fuse, but I'm not sure on that one.
I never thought I would ever have to say this but...
WHOOSH!!!
They need to rename the "Delete" button to "Memory Hole."
OneNote. Without it, I might as well just not have a computer at home.
Anyone who suggests Evernote has never actually used OneNote. It is the killer app that no one knows about.
I thought the whole point of Dr. Who was that the writers get to just make stuff up, no matter how implausible, and the fans get to spend the whole week finding ways to rationalize it all away. Then, next week, something implausible, compared to the previous implausibilities, occurs and the fans get to work even harder, rationalizing all that away and trying to force it all into some semblance of a continuous discontiguous narrative.
This gets repeated over and over in an exponentially increasing swirl of cognitive dissonance and rationalization until either: A) Said fan's head explodes, or B) Said fan becomes delusional, believing themselves to be a genius because he/she, and only he/she TRULY understands the hidden meaning of the show.
You guessed it. Not a fan.
It doesn't even have to be an ideological stance. It's a matter of processing costs. Let the "forgetees" pay a nominal processing cost, and I wouldn't have as much of a problem.
Believe me, I know Google has gone "Full Microsoft" but I still think the idea of forcing a search engine COMPANY to filter out undesireable results is the start of a very slippery slope.
This is ridiculous. If the content is still out there, then Google, and all other search engines should index it. I can see asking them to not cache it, but to use stro,g-arm tactics to FORCE them to actively filter it out of results is, to my mind, a violation of their freedom of speech. Which SHOULD trump the freedom to F up and then hide it from the public.
Google and MS and all the other search engines should just threaten to pull out of the EU en mass rather than abide by this rediculous law.
No. They built the planet to find out the question, to which the answer is 42.
It wouldn't surprise me if these forum members were just a few people hired by the education industrial complex (Pearson, et al) to intentionally spoil the experience for others.
So, I hope they aren't trying to patent too much of this idea. It's been prior art for 10 years. Here is a link to an archived version of my post: http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsg.... It is all I could find from my phone.
I don't mind them using the idea. I posted it publicly hoping someone would. But they can't claim to own the idea or prevent others from using it.
Agreed. The fact that they had to cite such an obviously flawed anecdotal example indicates to me that they have no real evidence to offer. It also gives me reason to doubt their motives. Learning to code does have obvious advantages in logical thinking, which people today could definitely stand more of. But the coding skills don't, in and of themselves, increase ability to learn or understand the humanities any more than writing skills do. It is only the fact that most writing assignments require students to write ABOUT the humanities that learning writing increases "ability to learn" about the humanities. If all writing assignments were about computer games, then the students would learn about computer games instead of the humanities. (Disregarding the fact that computer games will one day be considered a form of literature and the study of their literary and sociological impact will fall under the humanities.)
So I, too, believe there are profit motives in all of this push for more CS in the classroom. The corporations pushing this agenda may think it will create an army of cheap programmers. But did shop class (which we also need more of) create an army of cheap plummers? Instead, as another /.er has mentioned, it will only show that, even with training, there are only a certain proportion of people who will have the innate abilities and deep interest to become truly good (not even necessarily great) programmers. So let Google, et al create their education programs. It can only have the positive effect of exposing more girls and minorities to programming, thus bringing diversity to an industry that desperately needs it.
However, it is the second profit motive that has me concerned. Creating educational material and selling it to the states is a total cash cow for the educational content industry. The amount of money school districts funnel to these corporations for mediocre and unnecessary materials (in addition to textbooks) is staggering (sorry, I have no citations). If Google, et al, are trying to siphon even more of that money away from teacher's salaries and into their corporate pockets, then we have to fight against that. It is entirely possible to croudsource good educational content and provide it for free to everyone.
Free content and more money to pay teacher's qualified to teach CS, will get us all the good things Google, et al, claim we can get from teaching more CS in schools while eliminating or naturally avoiding all the bad things many /.ers are wailing about.
False dichotomy much?
How can "farm free" algae have a reduced ecological impact? If they are harvesting algae from the ocean then they are having an ecological impact.
Hell, in the movie, they started using people because they had overharvested algae and plankton from the oceans.
One word:
Aluminium
An injection is not normally considered surgery. Stem cells are often merely injected into the target site.
Just saying.
Good point.
So, I guess we need to do both.
Everyone knows you will NEVER be able to remove all copies of anything from The Internet. Britain's and Americans just need to get over their insane habit of stigmatizing normal human behavior.
All of this depends on if the original creator of the joke is the person who originally tweeted it. On Twitter, there is an implied, if not explicitly stated, permission to re-use and recombine tweets. However, if the creator of the joke did not tweet it, then those who do tweet it may be violating copyright. Yes, everything you create is copyrighted as soon as you record it in some way. If others use that without your permission, either explicit or implied, then they are violating your copyright. Just because Twitter is based on copying doesn't mean it is inappropriate for them to protect the copyrights of works placed in their system by people other than the original creator.
Really, the simplistic view of the world taken by supposedly smart people on this site never fails to astound me.
I get almost all my slacks and dress-casual shirts at the Goodwill, or other thrift, store. I often find things that look as good as new for $2 - $5. Because the slacks are usually in better shape than the jeans in thrift stores, it is actually cheaper for me to wear dress casual.
...automated, self-driving car outta my cold, dead hands as soon as you can hack it. Which should be in about 3 ... 2 ... 1
Yeah, never gonna get one of those things.
I knew someone would make my point for me.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster NEVER gives anyone the right to treat people like shit. Only God does that.
We're going to have to do something about that... ... Someday.
Oh look, another financial crisis. No a terrorist threat! That's it, a terrorist threat. Yeah, yeah, a terrorist.
Pay no attention to the billionair behind the curtain. Or the H1-B sitting in your chair.
Thanks.
Yes, and a human being CANNOT survive going over 20 mph and buggy whips are going to be in high demand forever. Besides, you can't get that nasty black stuff out of the ground without digging up half the countryside.
I can think of at least two methods to remove plastic from the oceans and I haven't even tried very hard. Someone will find a way.