1478 posts • joined Monday 18th August 2008 17:08 GMT
Bread-and-butter pudding is nice. With raisins.
Re: Writers, huh?
He's worthy of mention because of his stance on copyright issues which is not entirely irrelevant to the article.
Besides, although Cory might not be as well known to the general public, he is probably very well known to the readers of this forum.
It's quite refreshing to be honest.
Raised a bit of a titter, ooh, er.
Re: @ Alan Brown "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.
> A lot of them can be easily replaced with roundabouts - my home town in Europe has switched almost all intersections from traffic lights to roundabouts, and now a trip across town takes 10 minutes instead of 25.
I would make a distinction between large roundabouts (the like of which we generally have in Europe) and the smaller mini roundabout. Roundabouts generally are generally much more efficient than an equivalent light controlled junction.
However, the mini roundabout in a lot of situations is a deathtrap and a killer to traffic flow, particularly at very busy junctions where there is equal traffic density on all the approaches. Because of diver uncertainty, the traffic nearly always stops dead and there is uncertainty as to who can proceed. The mini roundabout (unlike its larger cousins) have only a 1 car capacity, so any vehicle entering the junction is immediately in conflict with every other. There's often a bit of hand waving and false starts as the drivers try to arbitrate movement. Diver uncertainty and no official way to arbitrate between drivers is the most dangerous situation to get into on the roads. For this situation, the 4-way junctions are a better bet since there are at least some basic rules that handle the simple cases of a very busy junction.
Personally, I would rather not have any of these small junctions, but in a lot of cases, there is no option.
Re: About that Star Trek stuff...
> But what is "printing" for housing - or building in general? I'd suggest it's a process where materials are stacked layer by layer according to a design. If that's not what a brickie does already, then what is it?
Well yes, but the whole 3D printing idea is mostly about automation.
People are expensive, machines are cheap and probably quicker and better.
Re: Oh come on Reg, y
> "evolution theory" is not a thing. It is like saying that "falling down supports the gravity theory". Gravity is observable, it exists, the theories are about _how_ it works.
Gravity is a thing inasmuch as it is an effect.
Newton described gravity mathematically and that mathematical explanation is a theory in itself. Your argument that since he doesn't describe the underlying quantum mechanism it is not a theory doesn't hold water because it is innately impossible to describe something at an absolutely fundamentally basic level since such a level doesn't exist as far as we know. You can always go deeper. Newton didn't discover gravity. People have know for thousands of years that apples fall to the ground. He discovered and described something about the nature of gravity and this is sufficient to call a theory.
It's like asking someone to describe the fundamentals of the English language to an English speaker without using the English language. Does a dictionary describe the English language? Yes, but paradoxically, you need to understand English to understand the dictionary.
Wow Richard, I really don't know where to start with this response.
> When you ask the wrong question then the answer is irrelevant.
The Gods that are revered in religions as deities may well have been inspired by real people and the cargo cults document this phenomenon quite well. But if they were real people, I see no problem in admiring those people for what they are and what they do. But worship them as all powerful deities? I'm not sure what logic there is in that. If you are questioning the probable non-existence of deist or theist Gods, substituting them for real people that are no Gods doesn't seem to answer anything. For instance, many believe that Jesus Christ was probably a real historical figure. It is certainly possible. He might have been the son of God, or he might have been a time traveller bluffing his way with technology. Or he might have been a powerful leader revered and elevated to deity status and people often do. Or he might be just a story. For such a supposedly revolutionary figure, apart from the Bible, there is almost no other mention in recorded history of him. (And yes there is a lot of recorded history from the time from various sources)
I ask no question. I suggest that people should believe what they see and hear all around them. They should think logically and believe what makes sense for them. That involves listening and thinking deeply.
Unfortunately most deist and theist religions involve trust in a single historical source of dubious record along with the suspension of any comparison with what they experience and perceive in the present day. Not only that, people in different religious cultures have an entirely different view of what that truth is, the only apparent difference being their cultural up-bringing. Since those world views are entirely at odds with each other only one can actually be right. Therefore, why would we expect that any one is right with such a flimsy basis for any of them?
Although not entirely related humour, for some reason this bought memories of a cryptic puzzle someone asked me long ago: put together a grammatical sentence that makes sense with 7 consecutive instances of the word "and".
Answer: describing the sequence "and and and", you could say "There is a space between and and and, and and and and".
I humbly submit this for the Darwin awards.
On the other hand, as other have pointed out, it doesn't really seem that funny :(
>Technically, as food ultimately grows from sunlight, it's solar-powered. Then again, knowing how sunlight is made, it's actually nuclear-powered. On the other hand, knowing how stars are made, it turns out it *really is* gravity-powered. So the article was right after all!
Re: Ban 'em, I say...
> , or off and therefore unecessary to wear.
A free society....I remember that.
So your argument is that she doesn't have a good reason, in your view, to be wearing it, therefore she should be banned from wearing it.
Try explaining that to the plod that stops you to ask why you are walking down that particular street and booking you because you can't give him a good enough excuse.
It never fails to shock me when I see people still using this kind of argument. "I can't think of a good reason why they would do this so they shouldn't be allowed." Perhaps you might apply that same argument to their unfashionable purple shirt, or their unattractive hairstyle?
Re: Interesting, but changes little
> The argument that the FSM does not exist from parsimony or "Occam's Razor" is a naive logical positivist point of view that shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the world.
Well not really.
The argument that a particular deity exists, has a particular documented history and has a particular nature is unlikely because there are an infinite number of other possibilities that are just as likely, included the version where there is no God.
And yes, you could argue that it is a personal experience and nobody's business but their own, but it doesn't make it true.
So, if we were to assume that a deity did exist, which one is it? The Christian God? Allah? Vishnu? They can't all be right. As our "saviour", the "great Dawkins" said, you are atheistic about all of the other Gods but this one: I just go one God further.
> At its heart, Evolution is essentially a tautology. It is correct by definition.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Evolution is probably correct because of the enormous amount of corroborating evidence supporting it. However, the "fact" of evolution is far from being a tautology if you mean it in the mathematical or logical sense. That just doesn't make any sense.
Re: African or European?
> So it's not the picture of evolution that's been "thrown into question" but the migratory habits of your early coconut carrying Neanderthal...
Yeah, that title did puzzle me somewhat.
Re: All lies
> 90% of even fundamentalist Christians, never mind the majority of more moderate Christians, would not claim that.
Well thank "God" for science and critical thinking otherwise they most certainly would.
Seriously though, although I like a good troll as much as the next guy, there is a serious point to keeping on the pressure. If us atheists don't keep it up, the superstitious *will* fight back with their authority and their willing ignorance and our descendants will not thank us for our laxity.
The price of freedom is constant vigilance and the price of enlightenment is constant thinking.
> And rather than Darwins theory of evolution, it was in fact Darwins hypothesis of evolution?
Darwin would have started out with a hypothesis, then gathered the evidence, tested it and came to the conclusion that the hypothesis was true. It then becomes a theory.
Evolutionary theory has such a large body of independently corroborating evidence that it constitutes "fact" in the scientific sense, which again is probably not what most people would understand the meaning of the word to be.
Re: Rubin's Robots
> Plus the singing / dancing routine every couple of minutes as they deliver an advert
Hah, that's a scary prospect :D
So you want you bathroom washed out or your garbage collected? Just watch this 2 minute advert before I perform this menial function...
Re: Hastening French Revolution 2.0, I see
Of course the ideal is that if all the jobs that no-one wants to do are being done by machines, then we instantly don't need jobs or money. Robots doing all the non-interesting stuff is the fast path to a post-scarcity society.
Question is, as a race would we be able to live in that kind of society?
I honestly think that robotics, and in particular, robotics in the field of "doing all those shit jobs that we don't want to do, but are still hard for robots" are going to be a big field in the future.
This market is going to be enormous and the Japanese realise this, even if it is also "cool".
This guy with Google realise this and the have the wonga to get into it. I feel that now is a good time to getting into this field.
Re: @Richard... Throw the book at her.
> Think of it like having an open bottle of whiskey (top on) sitting on the floor on the passenger side front seat.
You're confusing things. The open bottle would be sufficient to raise suspicion.
A quick blow in the breathalyzer would settle it.
The objections to your point above are pointing out that opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as actually committing a crime. Some of the laws that are brought in to tackle some of the anti-social issues lately have become rather unreasonably over bearing.
Here in BC, Canada we have recently had new laws about using handheld devices while driving. Well I've never used a device while driving, since I believe it is an unnecessary distraction. However, the law has not been framed in that way. The law here says that you can be booked if the car is "under your control". Which basically means if the engine is on and you are in the driving seat. So no pulling over the the side of the road and parking up to take a call then which is what I might have done previously. Now doing the "right thing" can get you a ticket just as easily as behaving like a twat and all good will from the driving public is sucked right out of the legislation.
Sometimes, I have to wonder if the people making these laws has even half a brain.
Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.
> As an aside I often wonder if the USA's addiction to 4-way stops goes some way to explainng their ridiculously high urban fuel consumption levels.
Nah, that's because their cars are shit.
Actually, the 4-way (or all-way) junctions are a better alternative to the mini-roundabout as fairness is enforced by the 4-way rules, i.e. the first to arrive is the first to leave, with additional rulings for when vehicles arrive simultaneously. Busy mini-roundabouts have an alarming and annoying tendency to lock up with no-one quite sure who can go.
> True. We are fortunate however to live in a society where the police need evidence to charge you with an offence, and until using a mobile while driving was explicitly in the books as a no no, people got away with it unless they were caught having a whoopsie with another car or the kerb etc.
Yes, but you're unfortunately falling into the common trap of forgetting what the law is trying to address.
The problem is accidents, not distraction. If that were the case, the the police would not be allowed to used laptops and radios lest they crash into someone.
In days gone by, your evidence would be given by a police officer detailing what he saw and how, in his opinion, you were not paying proper attention. Even if we did have a law about using a mobile phone, we have to have a police officer testifying to seeing you using it, or catch it on a camera.
The current situation now involves a ton of people getting booked for using a mobile phone while driving without ever being involved in an accident. So banning mobile phone use feels intuitively like you're doing something worthy about the problem, in actual fact all it does is criminalise a lot of people that aren't doing any harm whatsoever without making any difference to the accident rate.
It would still be a crime to use a mobile phone while driving if it caused an accident without making it explicitly so.
Personally, I think it is disgraceful for elected representatives to be suggesting a boycott of ANY business.
What next? Telling us we shouldn't support *certain* charities?
Have these people not got anything better to be doing?
Re: Fancy Kim Kardashian's ... nose?
A cardassian nose would be cooler.
Or a forehead.
Re: Agree with most comments here...
> Sorry, Amazon does not pay the UK Govt any VAT whatsoever, that money is paid by consumers as a tax on all goods that they choose to procure from Amazon.
I think you'll find that everything Amazon pays ultimately comes from the customer.
Your differentiations are accounting in nature only.
Yet another attempt to make watching "free" content as painfully awful as the legitimate channels.
You know, the content vendors could make their efforts as pain free and as compelling as the Netflix model.
Give the people what they want at a reasonable price, not stuffed with ads, convenient, without cramming it full of messages telling you that you're a fucking criminal, and able to watch it whenever and wherever they want and people will pay for it. Most of the pirating would just dry up.
> Baroness of Soho
Her stage name surely?
> Prime Minister David Cameron gushed that MLF's efforts were nothing short of a "revolution".
Sorry, my gutter mind read that as MiLF.
Ah yes, Friday morning lunacy.
Evidently crime doesn't pay all that well.
Re: Compensating for something?
Jesus, did someone really vote me down for being happy?
What kind of saddo would do that?
Re: @skelband Here's an idea
> Why do you assume that a presumption of innocence is a democratic right?
Alas you are right.
I should have said a free society.
<sigh> I do remember that we did at least pretend to have one at some point.
Not really sure why Minecraft wouldn't work for you.
It's written in JAVA and runs OK for my son on our Linux Mint/Ubuntu machine.
Download it, make sure you have JAVA installed and off you go.
There aren't really an issues unless the machine is just too pedestrian on the graphical front to cope.
What were the particular issues that you had?
Re: Here's an idea
> My thoughts are that (1) Should an ISP be required to block a site on the grounds of accusation alone, then such a block should only stand for a limited period, during which the petitioner should be required to prove, in a court, the offence.
Well here's another thought: Perhaps it could be blocked *after* the accusation has been proved in court. You know, like we do in a democracy.
Re: As if security theatre were *about* security.
It's just like 1984. In fact it is disturbingly like 1984.
Re: As a PS3 owner
> DVDs are far from enough. If you can't see the huge quality difference between a BluRay and a DVD then you are blind or under drugs.
Depends what you're looking for.
DVDs have been phenomenally successful, but look what they were taking over from: VHS, a truly awful and inconsistent experience. Like the difference between tape and CD.
Sure, Bluray is cleaner and better, but the motivation to move to it is far less than what we saw for DVD and the slow take up backs that up. Notwithstanding the cost of Bluray players, DVD players were dear when they first came out as well. There has not been the same scale of increase of production with Bluray as we saw with DVD.
> Please, detail your cold logic for the world, skelband. I await your wisdom, in awe of your profound humanity.
Firstly, I'm not quite sure if you with me or against me here. Your post is a bit ambiguous.
>I'm so very deeply sorry that I don't view human being as commodities to be bartered and discarded.
You pose a false dichotomy. Realising that it is pointless trying to put an economic value on a person doesn't mean that you don't care, it means that you prefer to use other, more useful measures.
I value human life. However, having a conceptual scale with a pot of bodies on one side and a pile of money on the other seems to me to be futile and meaningless.
Ask a father what his daughter is worth and he'll probably say he would die for her: he would not trade all the money in the world for her, her intrinsic value is not something that you can put into sterling. The question is meaningless and facile.
Problem with a lot of these laws, where they try to proscribe what is allowed and what is not is that it creates inconsistency. Is fiddling with the car radio distraction?
What we really need is a reason to trust the judgment of cops again and have them book people for driving while distracted, a statute which we have had for a *long* time.
Picking out a long list of official things that are distracting is a road to nowhere good and it will just make the ensuing litigation all the more complex (e.g. banning phone use, but what about this iPad?)
I usually switch off a debate when I see a question like "What is the monetary value of a human life?"
It's a stupid question and has no real meaning. How can you possible put a value on a human life?
Like when someone tries to justify some stupid, far-reaching legislation with "think of the children" or "isn't it worth it to save lives". It might well be, but using a human cost monetary justification is stupid and pointless.
You can only frame the question as "Is the cost equitable to the benefit we see from it" and even that is an entirely subjective question.
> I am having trouble distinguishing these NSA guys from the "Hackers" and other "Miscreants" on the internet.
The difference is in the size of their budget and the number of weapons that they have.
Re: Compensating for something?
You guys bring joy to a boring Monday morning.
Re: As a PS3 owner
The problem with PS4 and XBone is that their playing to the technologically diminishing returns game.
We have a guy here that got a PS4 on launch night. He says that the games look clearer and sharper in 1080p but really it's like comparing Bluray to DVD. For most people, DVD is good enough. I just don't think there are *that* many people ready to give up on their PS3 and XBOX 360 just yet in just the same way that the Bluray players are nice but for most people too expensive to make it worthwhile for the difference in quality.
Large screens might make a difference for some people but if you have a standard box, the difference is more marginal.
Erm, dairy products, I mean :D
Although fairy products do have a bit of a rough ride here.
I'm not a big lover of governments messing with free trade. Any attempt at restricting trade or imposing tariffs/duty always has side effects.
Look at the enormous duty on fairy products into Canada. Hopelessly inefficient dairy farms and ridiculously expensive, yet shit cheese in the shops.
> I'm assuming you consider yourself to be an intelligent being who requires evidence in order to make decisions.
It has been well documented that world religions are pretty self-sustaining once they get going.
They require only that their participants suspend logic and that they indoctrinate their children. The indoctrination helps with the logic suspension as it happens.
Someone must have kicked them off in the first place.
1) they emerge spontaneously by people "having a laugh" or
2) they naturally occur through superstition and grow from there, or
3) someone with influence (read money/power) was on drugs and persuaded people in their power that sky fairies exist with the threat of stabbing to death.
But 3) would never happen would it?
Oh wait, that's exactly what happened.
Certainly in England and many other places. Either be a Christian or die. Your choice.
Re: Keep calm...
> in which Google used its might to simply brush aside the objections of the Author's Guild ?
Well in all fairness, it was a US court that did the brushing.
> We will be commercializing the advanced printing platform beyond smartphone manufacturing use and anticipate it being useful as a fab-grade manufacturing to a variety of products and industries, but Motorola will have an exclusive on the use of it for smartphone manufacturing in the beginning. New materials will be developed and used but there is nothing specific to announce on this front right now. As we develop the new materials they will also become commercially available for other markets.
So, erm, no then.
But probably not the first instance of "open-washing" then.
Can I claim first use of the term?
> The wine was flavoured with honey, mint, cinnamon bark, juniper berries and even mysterious "psychotropic resins", which might explain why people in the biblical era spent so much time spouting prophesies and wearing technicolor dreamcoats.
.. and believing in fairies that live in the sky.
> Whatever the Chinese impose on others in terms of trade tariffs, impose on them. They will soon get the point.
If the trade balance between China and their trading partners was balanced, you'd have a good point.
However, since China is a net exporter of practically everything, reciprocity is not a realistic proposition.
Re: > so bright ... because it was so close to Earth
Indeed. And the actual event happened over 3 billion years ago :D
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Microsoft: Don't listen to 4chan ... especially the bit about bricking Xbox Ones
- Shivering boffins nail Earth's coldest spot
- Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default