Ah, but it's not just the complexity. Viruses are not considered living, due to several reasons (some cited in your link) and so they fall outside our little fight over bad programming in living things.
But this is definitely very interesting. Thanks for that article.
The human body is an example of really crap evolutionary programming
Of course. You could've done a lot better with a bit of pearl, right?
Hate to be Johnny Raincloud here, but engineers and scientists continue to look at the wonders of the human body for inspiration, in an incredibly diverse range of fields. The bad code you are talking about it what enables something like a stem cell to develop into structures we have yet to reproduce.
I'm not even Christian, but I get totally mad when people talk about the harmony of beauty and function in nature this way. So far, we of the science majors haven't been able to get together and create (starting from zilch)a single living organic cell with functioning DNA. So stop bitching about God's code and realize how inferior and utterly hapless your little scripts are.
You're just pissing me off. [ 6000 year old earth jokes in 3...2...1 ]
Since they cooperate with a few well known mirrors, couldn't this be better done via password-protected publishing, instead of just putting it in front of everybody and telling us to be nice?
We're not all nice you know. When there's a binary out there, we're gonna grab it. And even if we courteous comp.science grads decide to cooperate with the devs, we're not quite a ruling majority. Complicating things by requiring registration for access to binaries will improve matters for the development teams, and most people doing dev/testing should have some priviliged access.
This is an interesting situation, really. Money, showbiz, FOSS philosophy, embarassments and plenty of other things come into play.
You were using the IE engine inside a 3rd party browser, not the IE browser provided by Microsoft. I also made my tabbed IE-based browser years ago, and thousands of apps use the IE active-X object to display HTML.
Ok, you have a point. But the driving part of "driver 3" was getting pretty close to that sort of crappiness, and when you got got out of the car things didn't get better all of a sudden.
Driver 3 is one of those games I play just to remind myself of how shitty it was.
Your suggestion here has nothing on "driv3r", which is like the worst game anybody or their mother will ever play.
I cannot begin to describe to you the state of crappiness in graphic design, gameplay and even sound that fill face the unlucky gamer in the first 5 minutes. It was so bad I turned off my PC after around 10 min, then switched it back on again out of my disbelief that anything could be this bad - I had to try it again to make sure.
Driver 3 is the king of shitty games, and developers will have to try very hard indeed to make something crap enough to come close on the list.
Anonymous users with spoofed IP addresses are not a very nice target to go after. And users who create temporary accounts to upload vids, again using proxy chains, are not fun either. How are they going to sue people they don't know?
Or will they spend thousands of dollars on professionals to track us down over a couple of 4 minute video clips?
They cannot win this, from a business point of view.
For example, new Windows users are often surprised at the abrupt disappearance of a window when they click the Minimize button.
Elsewhere, General Motors has embarked on a major overhaul of it's cars' dashboard designs, meant to alleviate drivers' shock at the cars stopping when the brakes are applied.
Come on. Is this for real? Somebody actually wrote that? Tell you what, they could do better by using a prompt on minimize events:
Are you sure you want to minmize this window? Ok here goes. It's going to be in the bottom left of the screen. | Yes | | No!! | | I need further assistance |
but I can be really mean, ya know? Sarcasm, indirect insults and general belittle-ing of the operator are my style. When/if computers are capable of having a truly human conversation (the famous problem) then this will not be needed.
[soft, gentle voice]: $400 mil down the drain you fuckwads! Thank you!
On the contrary, I think we now know a lot more than the "carrying mechanism" with respect to Darwin's time and theories. Our understanding of how the "little changes" (that are ultimately responsible for development) across species are possible is what gives meaning to the notion of evolutionary change. The mutative effects of EM radiation and chemical mutagens happen to be the most powerful driving force in what is held to be evolutionary theory by contemporary secular science.
Darwin on the other hand, suffered great criticism due to his inability to come up with reasons why the development occurs in the first place, as opposed to how nature filters down the results based on the survival capability of the specimens. These he considered (as you do) to be details. I don't really think anybody had problems "believing" that the fittest survive/pass on some form of genetic information. It is in the generation of this highly detailed, naturally engineered information that Darwin failed to justify himself fully.
What people continue to have problems with to this day, is the chaining together of mathematical->physical->chemical->micorbiological concepts to formulate something that produces the wonders of nature as it is today. The truth is that everything, literally everything, has come to be because of arbitrary molecular reactions. The point of difference between educated monothiests and athiests will always be whether these effects can truly be spontaneous, yet produce these fabulous results.
And that is why I value our genetics pioneers and experts way more than this overrated - albeit very brave - individual.
He, in the face of tremendous religious and scientific adversity, put forth an astounding scientific theory worked out through great diligence.
I would actually contest that. The theory he put forth was overly simple and lacked the microbiological understanding of genetics we have today, which is infinitely more interesting. His reliance on "selection" - which is almost intuitive - as opposed to the actual induction of genetic features is a good example. Just because he had the balls to say something like:"humans could have come from monkeys" does not mean he is one of the greatest people who have ever lived.
I believe that given time, scientific advance would have made it necessary to make such postulations whether or not they are well recieved, since science took a very secular approach in the West due to the Galileo ordeal & others.
The guys who gave us DNA are far more important in my opinion.
Even if you connected to your asterisk server, how would you find the IP of anyone else you wanted to call if they weren't registered with your SIP server? Don't you need another PBX server or the like?
He was just passing on potentially "helpful" information and it was up to recipient to determine if there was anything to it or not.
Your uncle is a spammer? Anyway, what you're describing here is not all rumor. The first case was libel - a very nasty kind of rumor, and the second describes the sad state of naivity in today's just-about-literate populations. I've had comp.science professors forward BS to me with "send this to X people" lines in the email. It's not gossip/rumor. It's just horsecrap, and it works because people are darn stupid.
Rumor is like telling you Vista is coming out tommorow, or that the Chinese government is fining people for sending rumors.
I can't understand PETA freaks and environmentalist madmen, but this idea is in another league altogether. Who gives a flying f-ck if the planet would have less CO2 if we weren't there? Do you know what it means to have thriving ecosystems on a planet with no humans?
WRONG
You don't know, because it means nothing at all. Not only are you now saying that we should protect the damn planet, the summary suggests that the planet should be protected even if we don't exist anymore, and that masses of cockroaches and panda bears can somehow serve as a motivating factor. I'm sure the guys at GreenPeace all wish they could give you a collective blowjob right now, but this idea is full of shiite.
If humans are there anymore, then it doesn't matter, genius. Cats exist because we need something cute to pet, wild animals exist because we need Discovery Channel, and dogs exist to chase cats. There is no higher purpose.
You need to come to grips wih the fact that we rule. If we nuke ourselves from space, there will be no one to sit back and sigh at the beauty of the empty swimming pool we left behind. We give so much to the universe. We gave it G.W Bush. We gave it Ted Stevens. We gave it Tubes. We invented pr0n.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but it's not just the complexity. Viruses are not considered living, due to several reasons (some cited in your link) and so they fall outside our little fight over bad programming in living things.
But this is definitely very interesting. Thanks for that article.
They didn't say anything about pr0n. What good is a 3D web with no impact on pr0n?
Clearly this Cox person is clueless.
The human body is an example of really crap evolutionary programming
Of course. You could've done a lot better with a bit of pearl, right?
Hate to be Johnny Raincloud here, but engineers and scientists continue to look at the wonders of the human body for inspiration, in an incredibly diverse range of fields. The bad code you are talking about it what enables something like a stem cell to develop into structures we have yet to reproduce.
I'm not even Christian, but I get totally mad when people talk about the harmony of beauty and function in nature this way. So far, we of the science majors haven't been able to get together and create (starting from zilch)a single living organic cell with functioning DNA. So stop bitching about God's code and realize how inferior and utterly hapless your little scripts are.
You're just pissing me off.
[ 6000 year old earth jokes in 3...2...1 ]
Since they cooperate with a few well known mirrors, couldn't this be better done via password-protected publishing, instead of just putting it in front of everybody and telling us to be nice?
We're not all nice you know. When there's a binary out there, we're gonna grab it. And even if we courteous comp.science grads decide to cooperate with the devs, we're not quite a ruling majority. Complicating things by requiring registration for access to binaries will improve matters for the development teams, and most people doing dev/testing should have some priviliged access.
This is an interesting situation, really. Money, showbiz, FOSS philosophy, embarassments and plenty of other things come into play.
But it's on releases.mozilla.org
That's how it got to bittorrent as well I guess. If you want to prevent such situations, why did you allow it on a public server?
and even the memes look different!
You were using the IE engine inside a 3rd party browser, not the IE browser provided by Microsoft. I also made my tabbed IE-based browser years ago, and thousands of apps use the IE active-X object to display HTML.
In other words, point doesn't apply here.
Ok, you have a point. But the driving part of "driver 3" was getting pretty close to that sort of crappiness, and when you got got out of the car things didn't get better all of a sudden.
Driver 3 is one of those games I play just to remind myself of how shitty it was.
Your suggestion here has nothing on "driv3r", which is like the worst game anybody or their mother will ever play.
I cannot begin to describe to you the state of crappiness in graphic design, gameplay and even sound that fill face the unlucky gamer in the first 5 minutes. It was so bad I turned off my PC after around 10 min, then switched it back on again out of my disbelief that anything could be this bad - I had to try it again to make sure.
Driver 3 is the king of shitty games, and developers will have to try very hard indeed to make something crap enough to come close on the list.
Anonymous users with spoofed IP addresses are not a very nice target to go after. And users who create temporary accounts to upload vids, again using proxy chains, are not fun either. How are they going to sue people they don't know?
Or will they spend thousands of dollars on professionals to track us down over a couple of 4 minute video clips?
They cannot win this, from a business point of view.
Near the end of the video he asks some people(only girls I noticed) what they think of the 20-inch..umm..laptop. Sample responses:
Its biiig
It's huuuuge
If I drop this, you're in trouble
I like black laptops better than [hesitates] white laptops
The way it was explained to me was:
MARKETING you n00b! You must be new here.
For example, new Windows users are often surprised at the abrupt disappearance of a window when they click the Minimize button.
Elsewhere, General Motors has embarked on a major overhaul of it's cars' dashboard designs, meant to alleviate drivers' shock at the cars stopping when the brakes are applied.
Come on. Is this for real? Somebody actually wrote that? Tell you what, they could do better by using a prompt on minimize events:
Are you sure you want to minmize this window? Ok here goes. It's going to be in the bottom left of the screen.
| Yes | | No!! | | I need further assistance |
but I can be really mean, ya know? Sarcasm, indirect insults and general belittle-ing of the operator are my style. When/if computers are capable of having a truly human conversation (the famous problem) then this will not be needed.
[soft, gentle voice]: $400 mil down the drain you fuckwads! Thank you!
On the contrary, I think we now know a lot more than the "carrying mechanism" with respect to Darwin's time and theories. Our understanding of how the "little changes" (that are ultimately responsible for development) across species are possible is what gives meaning to the notion of evolutionary change. The mutative effects of EM radiation and chemical mutagens happen to be the most powerful driving force in what is held to be evolutionary theory by contemporary secular science.
Darwin on the other hand, suffered great criticism due to his inability to come up with reasons why the development occurs in the first place, as opposed to how nature filters down the results based on the survival capability of the specimens. These he considered (as you do) to be details. I don't really think anybody had problems "believing" that the fittest survive/pass on some form of genetic information. It is in the generation of this highly detailed, naturally engineered information that Darwin failed to justify himself fully.
What people continue to have problems with to this day, is the chaining together of mathematical->physical->chemical->micorbiological concepts to formulate something that produces the wonders of nature as it is today. The truth is that everything, literally everything, has come to be because of arbitrary molecular reactions. The point of difference between educated monothiests and athiests will always be whether these effects can truly be spontaneous, yet produce these fabulous results.
And that is why I value our genetics pioneers and experts way more than this overrated - albeit very brave - individual.
Or you could have read 1984 and gotten a far creepier perspective. Children turning their parents in ..etc. Wonderful stuff.
Because that wouldn't be very Genuine now would it?
*/Apologies
He, in the face of tremendous religious and scientific adversity, put forth an astounding scientific theory worked out through great diligence.
I would actually contest that. The theory he put forth was overly simple and lacked the microbiological understanding of genetics we have today, which is infinitely more interesting. His reliance on "selection" - which is almost intuitive - as opposed to the actual induction of genetic features is a good example. Just because he had the balls to say something like:"humans could have come from monkeys" does not mean he is one of the greatest people who have ever lived.
I believe that given time, scientific advance would have made it necessary to make such postulations whether or not they are well recieved, since science took a very secular approach in the West due to the Galileo ordeal & others.
The guys who gave us DNA are far more important in my opinion.
Even if you connected to your asterisk server, how would you find the IP of anyone else you wanted to call if they weren't registered with your SIP server? Don't you need another PBX server or the like?
Is this not a dirty rumor that is spreading? Somebody should be fined.
He was just passing on potentially "helpful" information and it was up to recipient to determine if there was anything to it or not.
Your uncle is a spammer? Anyway, what you're describing here is not all rumor. The first case was libel - a very nasty kind of rumor, and the second describes the sad state of naivity in today's just-about-literate populations. I've had comp.science professors forward BS to me with "send this to X people" lines in the email. It's not gossip/rumor. It's just horsecrap, and it works because people are darn stupid.
Rumor is like telling you Vista is coming out tommorow, or that the Chinese government is fining people for sending rumors.
I meant women talking, not pr0n. Don't get me wrong ok?
An internets free of women.
It's been released for a couple hours and still no exploits. Is this an ambush?
Dude, without us Earth would suck.
I can't understand PETA freaks and environmentalist madmen, but this idea is in another league altogether. Who gives a flying f-ck if the planet would have less CO2 if we weren't there? Do you know what it means to have thriving ecosystems on a planet with no humans?
WRONG
You don't know, because it means nothing at all. Not only are you now saying that we should protect the damn planet, the summary suggests that the planet should be protected even if we don't exist anymore, and that masses of cockroaches and panda bears can somehow serve as a motivating factor. I'm sure the guys at GreenPeace all wish they could give you a collective blowjob right now, but this idea is full of shiite.
If humans are there anymore, then it doesn't matter, genius. Cats exist because we need something cute to pet, wild animals exist because we need Discovery Channel, and dogs exist to chase cats. There is no higher purpose.
You need to come to grips wih the fact that we rule. If we nuke ourselves from space, there will be no one to sit back and sigh at the beauty of the empty swimming pool we left behind. We give so much to the universe. We gave it G.W Bush. We gave it Ted Stevens. We gave it Tubes. We invented pr0n.
Just..never mind.