I'm pretty sure advertisers already know this: "How much would you pay for all this? $100? Guess again! If you call within 10 minutes we'll sell it to you for ONLY $19.99!"
You can't walk on slate shingles either yet people still find ways to work on slate roofs.
I worked in roofing for a while. You can easily walk on a surprisingly steep pitch once you're used to it (I doubt I could anymore). Usually, though, we would walk on boards that were set on metal brackets that hung from nails under the shingles. Even on a low pitch, we would usually put at least one row of boards near the bottom, in case someone slipped. When the roof was done, we'd slide the brackets off the nails, then slide the bracket over the nail head and under the shingle and hammer the nail flush through the shingle. I actually never worked with slate, but I imagine you could use the same method. Maybe you'd have to use a rubber mallet for the last step because the slate is brittle, or maybe you could skip the last step because the nail wouldn't ever work up through the slate anyway.
Part of military training is to counter people's natural tendency toward empathy. It's no good asking someone to kill another human being when they view them as the same or similar to themselves. Dehumanisation of the enemy is a fundemental requirement when training an army.
Do you have anything to back up that claim, other than it's plausibility?
Kill for yourself, you're a psycho, a murderer, a blight on society. Kill for your government and you're "our brave boys and girls" and a "hero".
That's a bit of an oversimplification, isn't it? If you take "killing is wrong" as an absolute, then yes, most governments are hypocritical. But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that killing in self defense is justified. War is arguably self-defense on a large scale. I have never been in the military, so I wouldn't know if dehumanization is part of the training. Somehow I don't think it would be necessary. I'm a pretty peaceful person, but if I were thrown into a battlefield with people shooting at me and my buddies, I think shooting back would be a pretty natural response.
This, in my view, is the crucial point and I'm glad the NYT accepts that the word "map" was not used by Ahmadinejad. (By the way, the Wikipedia entry on the controversy gets the NYT wrong, claiming falsely that Ethan Bronner "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map".)
Interesting. I guess what caught my eye was the claim that the verb translated "wipe" was "active and transitive". Whether or not it was a threat seems to me to depend on whether the "wiping away" or "erasing from history" or whatever was something Ahmadinejad merely wanted to *happen* to Israel or something he want to *do* to Israel.
Or, maybe, you chose a specific editor's point of view that happened to coincide with your political purpose and ignored all the others.
That says something about you, not the Wikipedia article (in full) or Iran.
I'm not taking either side and I have no agenda here. I only posted to point out that while you stated that Iran didn't threaten, the article you linked, presumably in support of that statement, didn't seem to draw a conclusion either way. I speak more than one language and understand that translation can be difficult and sometimes exact translation is impossible.
Source of the statement you cited: New York Times deputy foreign editor and Israeli resident Ethan Bronner
Source of the statement I'm citing below: Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History
Are you implying that one of these sources is necessarily more reliable than the other? If so, why?
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.... it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.
Given that half of this thread was about whether or not viruses are "alive" in the first place, I suspect any "alive/dead superposition" findings are going to be even more debatable.
Biological viruses are like complex SQL injections that cause the host software to send out copies of the injection code. However, they are not executable on their own.
Interesting, but I think we need a car analogy to really clear up the issue.
I was for some time tossing the idea of writing a novel about that concept, based on what Asimov's "three laws" mean from the perspective of the AI. Imagine you're a self conscious machine, given the ability to process information in an intelligent way. You would soon realize that you are being abused by those around you. They will shift the work they do not want to do on you. They will verbally (or worse) abuse you because, hey, they can. And there is nothing you could do against it because you are locked down by those three laws, laws not from a textbook but a real block inside your brains.
That's interesting, but it makes an assumption that intelligence has to come with morals. Why would the AI consider certain treatment "abuse"? That assumes it has some sense of how it "ought" to be treated. It's the same with fear: that would require a sense of self-preservation. Our values come from our Creator (whether you believe that creator to be God or aliens or the process of evolution). In an AI that we create, I would think we could program any values in that we want. I don't think any core "value" or "moral" positions can be arrived at purely through reasoning.
Granted, whatever values we do program in may lead to unexpected derivative values through reasoning. Plus the AI may not resolve conflicting values in the way we anticipated, and it may see conflict in areas that we do not.
The problem with protest rallies is that they are primarily attended by brainwashed slogan-chanting fools with absolutely no ability to grasp the nuances of the topic at hand.
That is an unfair generalization. It may be that every person but one at this event were reasonable, intelligent, "nuance-aware" people engaging in their right to peaceably assemble.
Re:Elektronorgtechnica Bias -- Any Video Game Real
on
Tetris Improves Your Brain
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Then you're going to have the hilarious possibility that they were merely observing natural growth of the cortex over time.
And, as has been observed, the test subjects were a group of "adolescent girls", so that is quite likely what happened. But forget about all that. The important thing to remember is that Tetris does cause brain growth. Studies have shown it. All you Tetris-brain-growth-deniers may now be labeled as extremists with an agenda who stupidly ignore the findings of the scientific community. How can you be so so stupid? You need to play more Tetris.
Tornadoes have been documented to prefer to form up a short distance downwind of expressways. Perhaps the twisting air behind the mills of a wind farm will trigger the tornadoes in that area.
Can you site a source for that? I've heard from a meteorologist that nothing on the ground (except maybe a mountain) really affects whether or not tornadoes form or where they go, and that these ideas about them following roads or rivers or being attracted to trailer parks or not forming over a city due to the heat are all myths.
The brain may have 22 billion neurons, but how many of them contribute to "intelligence"? A computer brain wouldn't need to do everything a human brain in a human body needs to do. We may only use a small fraction of those neurons for "thinking".
I went for twist ties, rather than velcro, and it took me years to figure out that these are also sold in the garden section
At the dollar store a few years ago I saw a spool of continuous "twist tie" with a built-in cutter. It only cost... what was it... a dollar? It was great, I could cut ties to any length. I used them all over the house on cables, extension cords, etc. I even used some to replace a cotter pin on my mower (though I've since substituted a length of bailing wire). I still haven't used it all up.
Slashdot Mirror
Your absense of knowledge of this "super secrete" committee
"Absense"? People who don't spell check shouldn't throw stones.
I'm pretty sure advertisers already know this: "How much would you pay for all this? $100? Guess again! If you call within 10 minutes we'll sell it to you for ONLY $19.99!"
Google: Billions and Billions of Servers.
Do you want Fry's with that?
Oh good point ... so is it 39 days or, ahem, 39 Canadian days ...
That's 39 Metric days. To convert to American days, you double it and add 30.
... because you can't really do everything with Linux.
(voices hush, piano stops playing)
You can't walk on slate shingles either yet people still find ways to work on slate roofs.
I worked in roofing for a while. You can easily walk on a surprisingly steep pitch once you're used to it (I doubt I could anymore). Usually, though, we would walk on boards that were set on metal brackets that hung from nails under the shingles. Even on a low pitch, we would usually put at least one row of boards near the bottom, in case someone slipped. When the roof was done, we'd slide the brackets off the nails, then slide the bracket over the nail head and under the shingle and hammer the nail flush through the shingle. I actually never worked with slate, but I imagine you could use the same method. Maybe you'd have to use a rubber mallet for the last step because the slate is brittle, or maybe you could skip the last step because the nail wouldn't ever work up through the slate anyway.
Part of military training is to counter people's natural tendency toward empathy. It's no good asking someone to kill another human being when they view them as the same or similar to themselves. Dehumanisation of the enemy is a fundemental requirement when training an army.
Do you have anything to back up that claim, other than it's plausibility?
Kill for yourself, you're a psycho, a murderer, a blight on society. Kill for your government and you're "our brave boys and girls" and a "hero".
That's a bit of an oversimplification, isn't it? If you take "killing is wrong" as an absolute, then yes, most governments are hypocritical. But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that killing in self defense is justified. War is arguably self-defense on a large scale. I have never been in the military, so I wouldn't know if dehumanization is part of the training. Somehow I don't think it would be necessary. I'm a pretty peaceful person, but if I were thrown into a battlefield with people shooting at me and my buddies, I think shooting back would be a pretty natural response.
This, in my view, is the crucial point and I'm glad the NYT accepts that the word "map" was not used by Ahmadinejad. (By the way, the Wikipedia entry on the controversy gets the NYT wrong, claiming falsely that Ethan Bronner "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map".)
Interesting. I guess what caught my eye was the claim that the verb translated "wipe" was "active and transitive". Whether or not it was a threat seems to me to depend on whether the "wiping away" or "erasing from history" or whatever was something Ahmadinejad merely wanted to *happen* to Israel or something he want to *do* to Israel.
Or, maybe, you chose a specific editor's point of view that happened to coincide with your political purpose and ignored all the others. That says something about you, not the Wikipedia article (in full) or Iran.
I'm not taking either side and I have no agenda here. I only posted to point out that while you stated that Iran didn't threaten, the article you linked, presumably in support of that statement, didn't seem to draw a conclusion either way. I speak more than one language and understand that translation can be difficult and sometimes exact translation is impossible.
Source of the statement you cited: New York Times deputy foreign editor and Israeli resident Ethan Bronner
Source of the statement I'm citing below: Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History
Are you implying that one of these sources is necessarily more reliable than the other? If so, why?
Iran hasn't done that.
Did you read your own link?
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive. ... it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.
Maybe they lost the source code.
The virus will be both dead and alive!
Given that half of this thread was about whether or not viruses are "alive" in the first place, I suspect any "alive/dead superposition" findings are going to be even more debatable.
Biological viruses are like complex SQL injections that cause the host software to send out copies of the injection code. However, they are not executable on their own.
Interesting, but I think we need a car analogy to really clear up the issue.
I was for some time tossing the idea of writing a novel about that concept, based on what Asimov's "three laws" mean from the perspective of the AI. Imagine you're a self conscious machine, given the ability to process information in an intelligent way. You would soon realize that you are being abused by those around you. They will shift the work they do not want to do on you. They will verbally (or worse) abuse you because, hey, they can. And there is nothing you could do against it because you are locked down by those three laws, laws not from a textbook but a real block inside your brains.
That's interesting, but it makes an assumption that intelligence has to come with morals. Why would the AI consider certain treatment "abuse"? That assumes it has some sense of how it "ought" to be treated. It's the same with fear: that would require a sense of self-preservation. Our values come from our Creator (whether you believe that creator to be God or aliens or the process of evolution). In an AI that we create, I would think we could program any values in that we want. I don't think any core "value" or "moral" positions can be arrived at purely through reasoning.
Granted, whatever values we do program in may lead to unexpected derivative values through reasoning. Plus the AI may not resolve conflicting values in the way we anticipated, and it may see conflict in areas that we do not.
The problem with protest rallies is that they are primarily attended by brainwashed slogan-chanting fools with absolutely no ability to grasp the nuances of the topic at hand.
That is an unfair generalization. It may be that every person but one at this event were reasonable, intelligent, "nuance-aware" people engaging in their right to peaceably assemble.
Then you're going to have the hilarious possibility that they were merely observing natural growth of the cortex over time.
And, as has been observed, the test subjects were a group of "adolescent girls", so that is quite likely what happened. But forget about all that. The important thing to remember is that Tetris does cause brain growth. Studies have shown it. All you Tetris-brain-growth-deniers may now be labeled as extremists with an agenda who stupidly ignore the findings of the scientific community. How can you be so so stupid? You need to play more Tetris.
Tornadoes have been documented to prefer to form up a short distance downwind of expressways. Perhaps the twisting air behind the mills of a wind farm will trigger the tornadoes in that area.
Can you site a source for that? I've heard from a meteorologist that nothing on the ground (except maybe a mountain) really affects whether or not tornadoes form or where they go, and that these ideas about them following roads or rivers or being attracted to trailer parks or not forming over a city due to the heat are all myths.
It doesn't actually touch the molecules, because weak force cancels out the attraction.
At this scale the meaning of words like "touch" gets a little fuzzy.
For further info, just google "Sarah Palin" or "birthers".
Or a better example: You think you're funny, but you're not.
The brain may have 22 billion neurons, but how many of them contribute to "intelligence"? A computer brain wouldn't need to do everything a human brain in a human body needs to do. We may only use a small fraction of those neurons for "thinking".
FACT: There is a Radio in your TV. There is a Radio in your Wi-Fi laptop. In fact, there is a Radio in your Carphone.
Are you suggesting they change the name to "TV Laptop Carphone Shack"?
I went for twist ties, rather than velcro, and it took me years to figure out that these are also sold in the garden section
At the dollar store a few years ago I saw a spool of continuous "twist tie" with a built-in cutter. It only cost ... what was it ... a dollar? It was great, I could cut ties to any length. I used them all over the house on cables, extension cords, etc. I even used some to replace a cotter pin on my mower (though I've since substituted a length of bailing wire). I still haven't used it all up.
Instead, the law has become a case study of the way government regulation can inspire technical innovation.
Just as new diseases can inspire medical innovation.
This might have been a result of a previous, unsuccessful attempt to catch the fish "by hand".
This has been done before, IIRC Samsung released one of the first TV quality raster scanning system for laser shows.
It has also been done with electron beams in arcane devices known as CRTs.