OmegaHN

It would be much easier to play this if you could pause without blocking the image.

One of EVE's sayings is "Don't fly what you can't lose."

In general, you get that kind of ship especially for these types of fights. There isn't much base-building or PvE inside of EVE; it's all about the PvP. Being able to say that you flew a Titan into a battle is a major accomplishment inside of the EVE universe, so you don't care as much if you lose it (of course, you want to keep it safe, but only to fly it into more battles).

To me personally (I don't keep up with professional design trends), that is an amazingly well designed page. I click on it and I immediately know what the website is used for. All of the well-designed websites are too low on content; I have to search for what the website is about, and if I didn't already know what the products were I would be immediately turned off.

For instance, on the Spotify website, I am told two things: it is called Spotify and it has something to do with music. "Music for every moment" doesn't tell me much about the functionality of the product and really doesn't sell me on it. Lapka is even worse by not telling me a single thing on the actual page.

Yes it can, as it has been done before with the police system. You have a group of people watching society and reporting any criminal activity. It just so happens that the response system is already built in. Police don't go into private homes or search belongings without due process.

It should be quite easy to design a system in that way. Cameras and other surveillance tools can only be placed in public places; this will protect civil liberties while still enabling the government to better distribute justice. In effect, they will place a policeman on every street corner.

Playing Devil's Advocate here (I actually agree with you), the main argument against privacy is that it hampers effective and just running of the government. Simply put, the government must gather such information to work in the way that it is told to (we elected almost all of these people, remember). An example of this working properly is search warrants: the government can and will search your private property without your permission, a clear invasion of privacy, but acceptable as it leads to a better justice system. Yes, the government is limited in what it can search, but that power is still held by the government even if the person in question doesn't agree with it.

The question shouldn't be about protecting privacy; it should be about being fair with how the government invades it. For example, the body scanners could be considered not fair as they invade more people's privacy than necessary (or they could be fair if they didn't).

It is, though. Einstein wrote an entire book explaining the theory of general relativity to people who didn't even understand the math:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Special-General-Theory-Vol/...

Most ideas can be broken down into simpler parts. For instance, multiplication used to be a university level subject, but most literate people can do multiplication up to any digit (given the time, of course).

I think that the problem lies with Billy Bob, not the gun. It's not worth preventing the edge cases if that means reducing the average person's ability to defend themselves. Say that one person of the family had a pistol, and ran and got it while the Billy was busy shooting the others? The family member could then shoot Billy and possibly save a few family members. Guns are a means of personal power, and while loose gun laws mean that an unlawful person can get a gun, it also means that other people can defend themselves against said person, or other, non-gun-related crimes such as burglary.

I think it is the other way around. Chomsky is trying to find the underlying structure of intelligence (just like gravity underlies planetary motion), and is saying that others are simply trying to generate a model of intelligence (through statistical methods) with no understanding of why the intelligence behaves that way. Gravity is the why, planetary motion is the model produced by data (acquired by Brahe).

It's like the word "indefinitely". It may mean "we can start it back up anytime!" from a dictionary sense, but it's actual use is that "it's probably not coming back".

"Maintenance" means that they will fix major issues that the paying customers are legally entitled to (such as bugs that make the app unusable). They will do nothing beyond that.

I haven't seen a single person being entitled or saying that they deserved more from Sparrow. People are upset because Sparrow is being abandoned, and "rights" or what you "deserve" has nothing to do with it. Creating a blog post attacking fake "my rights!" arguments is just silly.

This is one thing that I've thought about Web 2.0 (now that it is in full swing). Countless dollars seem to be going to trying to reinvent the desktop inside the browser, when really the internet should supplement it as an expansion to its capabilities. Dropbox is the best example of this: there is a web client, but Dropbox truly shines as a simple folder that is the same across your devices. It takes the folder system and improves on it, rather than doing away with it altogether.

I both agree and disagree with your post. I do agree that people's discoveries and successes are very much based on luck (i.e. external factors), but I don't think personal accomplishment, progression, and overall contribution is luck based. Sure, becoming a Mark Zuckerberg takes luck, but the only difference between him and other people (assuming sufficient time in a certain subject) is that the general public liked and found a use for Zuckerberg's idea more. Essentially, success is luck-based, but genius is not.

I'm saying that interpreting IQ as intelligence is extremely narrow-minded and misleading to the general public. There is absolutely no evidence that IQ is a decent measure of intelligence. My point is that intelligence is a much broader subject than simple IQ, and using IQ as a measure of intelligence will produce both false positives (by training for the exam) and false negatives (by not targeting other areas of intelligence than the specific area used in some types of academia).

I am not saying that there is a specific definition of intelligence that is good. I am saying that IQ as intelligence is not good. I wouldn't have a problem if people did use the terms "intelligence" and "IQ" so interchangeably. If the linked article talked only about IQ, then I would have no problem, but the article specifically talks about intelligence, and then uses studies on IQ to try to makes points about intelligence.

By the way, if you are looking for a better theory of intelligence (which is beside my point), then you should look at Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell-Horn-Carroll_theory) as an example.

Correlations mean almost nothing. Just going off your list:

-IQ:Test Performance - Of course. IQ is a grade off of a test. It correlates with itself. If you mean tests such as the SAT or tests in a school, then yes, IQ does help somewhat with that, as it was designed to (the first IQ test, created by Alfred Binet, was designed to find students who would not do well in a regular school environment). However, do high test scores mean high intelligence? Not necessarily, as most test scores can be improved drastically with a class focusing only on the test, showing different tricks that the test maker's use. Same with IQ tests.

-IQ:Income - Income (generally) means higher education level, and modern education teaches the general forms of questions asked on tests, such as the IQ tests. Education trains the mind to think along the lines of what the IQ test uses to grade performance. Also, spoken another way, if IQ (which is "intelligence") correlate with income, then one can say that income correlates with IQ ("intelligence"). If this correlation is weak, then it is meaningless. If it is strong, then that is a very strong evidence for eliminating the lower classes to raise the "intelligence" level of a nation.

Most other factors follow along these lines. The problem with correlation is that it is not, in any way, a suggestion or a proof of causation. There can be infinitely many other factors that can be influencing the two.

I do agree that without a consistent, objective definition, one cannot possibly study intelligence. However, IQ is not a good definition of intelligence. At best, it tests "academic" intelligence, and at worst, it tests test-taking ability.

Taking from Wikipedia:

>"Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions." -APA report quoted in the article.

This article is very hard to digest because of the writers switching of "intelligence" and "IQ". Intelligence =/= IQ. IQ is a score on a test, and intelligence is a vague set of mental skills and processes to solve problems of varying degrees and subjects. To say that they are equal is like saying that athleticism is equal to the number of pounds you can bench.

If the writer is talking about IQ, then these investigations aren't interesting, as IQ is a very small subset of intelligence (the ability to solve those types of problems on a test, which you can easily train for). If the writer is talking about general intelligence, then the writer really shouldn't be mentioning IQ at all, as it is notorious for being confused as actual intelligence.

I think this problem is why academia is so valuable; academics sole purpose is to share their discoveries. What they build is not a product, but rather a set of ideas ( or others' ideas) to share with the public

Steam will still curate; this system only prioritized some games for review. It works a lot like the Steam Workshop.

I suppose you have to know the general idea of a Version Control System (VCS) first before you can understand how Git does version control. I'll try my hand at it.

A Version Control System is a software system that uses files to save different versions of your source code (really, it can save any file, but it works best with source code). The system also lets you revert back to an old version of your code, so you can try something radical out on your code knowing that you have a safe version tucked away in your version control system.

A 'commit' is when you tell the VCS to take a "snapshot" of your files and then save that in its system. Git implements 'commits' with three-location system: the working index (the files on your computer), the staging index (Git's log of what files you want to change), and then the actual commit index (where all the versions are saved). When you stage a file, you tell Git to add the name of that file to it's internal log, telling Git that you want that file to be saved in a version. After you have told Git what files to save (by "staging" them), you can commit (with 'git commit') to save that snapshot of your staged files. Later on, you can revert to the snapshot through git commands.

Hope this helps!

Eh, this doesn't really explain Godel's 2nd Incompleteness theorem; it only describes it in a roundabout way. The entire piece could be shortened down to: in math, all false statements are possible (i.e. their impossibility cannot be proved), and it doesn't go into any reasoning behind it.

I'm not sure about Godel's 2nd, but his 1st theorem can be described and explained with one simple sentence: this statement cannot be proven. If it is proven, then a false statement is proven. If it cannot be proven, then the proving system is flawed.

Yes, it is the case. In 35 U.S.C. 103:

>(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

This bothers me a lot. I use the Start Menu all the time for searching and common programs, and then use the taskbar as a way to manage open applications. Granted, I don't miss it on my Macbook, but that is already very limited by not having a mouse, smaller screen, etc.

I can see where you are coming from, but those extra stuff does add depth to the game once you learn all the new weapons. Granted, this is coming from somebody who plays a lot of TF2, but the "too many options" problem goes away certainly after 30 hours of playing, and often much less.