Assume 1 earthlike planet per galaxy, and say.... 1/1000 of those earthlike planets have life on them. And 1/1000 of those have intelligent life on par with humans. That's still a WHOLE LOT of intelligent life.
I've gotten more entertainment out of Master of Orion II than any other game I've purchased. Close behind is Diablo II. Neither of those games have INSANE graphics (MOO2 for sure doesn't) but both have a lot of replayable fun. I think I paid 29$ for each of them, and I've purchased them both more than once because I lost the discs and boxes and whatnot and just bought them again.
If someone released MOO2 for my iPhone for 5$ I would buy it in a heartbeat.
If someone released the old Monkey Island games on the iPhone for 5$ apiece there would be a good chance I would buy those too. To me the best market for games on the mobile devices is old school games. You could re-release a bunch of nintendo, super nintendo, or playstation 1 game on a smartphone and make bank. Final Fantasy 3 on my iPhone? Hell yeah.
I don't let random employees set up machines on the network and then allow outside access to them. I would want root access and a full rundown on what you were running on the system and who would have access.
They are being completely reasonable by requesting a non-root account.
Epic SCIENCE you noob.
"Oh shit, if that number is wrong then this planet is in a whole different place! Let's check! IT IS! HUZZAH! We know more today than we did yesterday!"
That's science. And you suck.
No this is the exact opposite of what we actually need. Higher birthrates lead to population pressure, which leads to expansion, which leads to things like space exploration and colonization. Humanity evolves through conflict, we're pretty much past the point of REALLY fighting with each other in a way that threatens the existence of humanity, so the only conflict left is the conflict for resources. We need to ramp that conflict up enough to make it profitable and desirable for people to pursue resources on other planets. That will drive technology and innovation, and continue to improve the average quality of life.
We need to spread out like locusts, ravaging everything before us, and the sooner the better.
Of course, I don't think that Deep Blue really out-played Kasparov on a level playing field either... I would be far more impressed if they could design a chess-playing computer that only considers a few hundred board combinations and still plays at a grandmaster level, since that is all that even the best human grandmasters do.
This is wrong. Human grandmasters enter the game with a pre-pruned tree. They've already discarded all of the obviously wrong board positions by applying their experience. So while they may only consciously consider a few hundred board positions it is not because they are not capable of considering more, it's because they have already discarded those board positions as very low percentage. Deep blue had to consider all of the board positions available for each move because it did not have "experience" to eliminate obviously bad board positions prior to consideration. So if you pre-pruned the computers tree to eliminate the 90% of the board positions that were obviously wrong then you could conceivably have a computer which only considered a few hundred positions for each move, but it would be considering the few hundred board percentages with the highest chance of resulting in victory. If it was locked into that pre-pruned tree you could then beat it by leading it into a nonstandard board position for which it did not have options. This is one of the ways you can currently beat most GO programs.
However if you allowed it to access the pruned options if a board position didn't match one of the higher percentage ones, much like a human player considering a novel board position by reviewing ones they have previously dismissed, then you have the same result. A chess playing robot that plays just like a human with a prodigious memory.
Because maybe it's easier to adapt humanity to an earth analogue world than to adapt that world to them? If humanity truly wants to spread to the stars then being able to make helpful adaptations for alien environments is one of the things that will help us do it.
It took me less time to find that iFixit already sold a Pentalobular screw driver kit and write a post about it than it did for you guys to bitch about the change in screws: Solution is here for those that can't be bothered using google ---> http://www.techemperor.com/how-to-remove-a-pentalobular-screw-from-your-iphone-4/
Enjoy.
Anyone that buys a gun and then fails to get the proper training with it deserves to be shot with their own firearm.
You created a situation where your hypothetical average person is doomed to failure. You've already decided that they failed to get the proper training with the weapon they are carrying.
Black belts in what? Fandancing and Water Aerobics?
Inquiring minds want to know, since you're using that as an appeal to your own authority.
I wouldn't mind some kind of proof that you've ever been anywhere near a combat zone, much less served in the armed forces in any capacity as well if you're going to try to use that as a platform to attack the idea of concealed carry.
Personally I would rather be carrying the firearm than not. If I'm not in a situation where I can use it, and I give up my wallet, and I just have to go by the DMV and get a new license and whatnot, then so be it. But if the situation arises where me having a firearm would make a difference, then I have one.
Oh, and I've got a blackbelt in something useless too... So, y'know.
You do not need to charge your damned car at work. Nor necessarily at home either. If you have a 300+ mile capacity and there are filling stations that can fill the damn thing up in 6 minutes then you drive the damn car around just like it had a gasoline engine and when the charge gets down around the 10% level you stop at the damn charging station and fill it up.
Why is everyone obsessed with the idea that they need to charge their car at home and at work and at the mall? Within the next couple of years regular gas stations will start having one or two electric "pumps" just like they have one or two diesel pumps. Then maybe you'll all STFU about charging your fucking car at the office.
Unfortunately most users learn by memorizing a series of mouse movements and button clicks. So the time and expense of retraining them to memorize a whole new series of button clicks for things is stupidly high. The slightest change in routine can completely derail most users and turn them into gibbering, panicked lunatics.
What really burned me up about the whole thing and prompted the article was that they actually banned someone for attempting to verify the credentials of one of their editors. I guess their solution to any accusation of false credentials is to remain willfully ignorant of them and then disclaim all knowledge.
If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a repository of information then they need to be vetting their experts or not allowing anyone to claim expert status of any kind.
Hold the endorse train a moment, please. I've just read the transcript Cy Q. Faunce provides and if it's accurate then to me, it really does look like significant coverage in a reliable source. Which leaves me with egg on my face, because it means I've been wrong for the last six months and goodness knows how many deletion debates; I've been consistently saying "delete" and I shouldn't have been. My position now is that we need input from a Slovakian editor who can tell us more about that TV programme.
Was the entry saved? Nope. Or at least not yet. The editor who filed the appeal had also checked into a degree claimed by one of the opposing editors, and was therefore banned. This isn't the first time Wikipedia has been indifferent to academic fraud issues. In this case, it is being proposed as a reason to close the debate on deletion...not because the facts are false, but because someone tried to find out if an editor was for real.
Is this worth fixing? Is Wikipedia too broken to fix?"
I have an empathy disorder. I simply can't empathize with people. I don't even really understand what empathy means. When someone tells me about how shit their life is I immediately start outlining ways they could fix the crap that is wrong. A lot of people get upset by this and I don't ever understand why. It's lead to a policy whereby I just don't listen to peoples whining. I've told more than one person, "I'm a problem solver, not a priest. If you want to tell your problems to someone who can't help you go to confession.". I generally stop associating with someone if they complain about something to me, refuse to follow my advice on the issue, then complain about it a second time. Apparently this is not empathetic.
What I want to know, is why the fuck anyone wants to tell all of their problems to someone and then not get any help? If I'm going to tell you that X is wrong, then I expect you to offer a solution. Not just go "Yes, that sucks. You are right." I don't need a second person for that shit.
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
