On July 14 2015 02:54 SoSexy wrote: I have 10 folders with various files. Is there a fast way to put all the files in one general folder, without having to cut-paste the files inside each one?
Open a console/terminal and use move commands.
On Windows, that would be something like "move source1\* destination\" for each source On Mac or a Unix system, it would be "mv source1/* source2/* etc/* destination"
This assumes the source folders and destination folder are in the same outer folder, and that outer folder is your console's working directory; if they aren't in the same place, give their full paths or move them, and use the "cd" command to change your working directory.
On July 14 2015 02:54 SoSexy wrote: I have 10 folders with various files. Is there a fast way to put all the files in one general folder, without having to cut-paste the files inside each one?
Open a console/terminal and use move commands.
On Windows, that would be something like "move source1\* destination\" for each source On Mac or a Unix system, it would be "mv source1/* source2/* etc/* destination"
This assumes the source folders and destination folder are in the same outer folder, and that outer folder is your console's working directory; if they aren't in the same place, give their full paths or move them, and use the "cd" command to change your working directory.
On July 14 2015 02:54 SoSexy wrote: I have 10 folders with various files. Is there a fast way to put all the files in one general folder, without having to cut-paste the files inside each one?
Open a console/terminal and use move commands.
On Windows, that would be something like "move source1\* destination\" for each source On Mac or a Unix system, it would be "mv source1/* source2/* etc/* destination"
This assumes the source folders and destination folder are in the same outer folder, and that outer folder is your console's working directory; if they aren't in the same place, give their full paths or move them, and use the "cd" command to change your working directory.
On July 14 2015 02:54 SoSexy wrote: I have 10 folders with various files. Is there a fast way to put all the files in one general folder, without having to cut-paste the files inside each one?
Open a console/terminal and use move commands.
On Windows, that would be something like "move source1\* destination\" for each source On Mac or a Unix system, it would be "mv source1/* source2/* etc/* destination"
This assumes the source folders and destination folder are in the same outer folder, and that outer folder is your console's working directory; if they aren't in the same place, give their full paths or move them, and use the "cd" command to change your working directory.
Write a bash script with a loop (or even Python, Perl or whatever else floats your boat). I would do it, but I'm even lazier than SoSexy and won't do someone else's work, even if it's trivial. In Windows you can use the DOS batch scripting language to do it, but it is horrid and I don't remember any of the syntax.
SoSexy, I think the fastest way to do this is just to say "Windows is so shit OMG" and then decide to not put all your files in one folder and leave them in 10 different folders.
On July 14 2015 04:52 OtherWorld wrote: SoSexy, I think the fastest way to do this is just to say "Windows is so shit OMG" and then decide to not put all your files in one folder and leave them in 10 different folders.
Ahah! I simply assumed there was some kind of hidden command like 'merge folders' or something. Too optimistic
On July 08 2015 05:01 fruity. wrote: Look at how we have progressed since 1900. The leaps forward in science and technology, from Einstein's work on the atom to visiting every planet in this solar system. All this in such a short time. What would someone from the 1700's make of an Apache attack helicopter? And then saw the sheer destruction these war machines can bring?
An incredible speed of technological advancement is happening, and we're increasingly reaching out into space, and developing the technologies for long distance space travel, to highlight one point;
A team of physicists from the UK, Portugal and Sweden led by Ruth Bamford of the Rutherford lab has shown that it should be possible to shield spacecraft using artificial magnetosphere's. MOO
READ THIS Google can spend BILLIONS of $'s on a WHIM and they are heavily investing in technology, as is a whole slew of American government agencies like the NSA, to their European counterparts. This is desired.
As we learn more about how our own brains work, this knowledge will in time be applied to quantum computing and Artifical Intelligence. I say a fully concious AI who has a sense of self, understanding that it lives in a different world to us.. Will happen at some point in the future, and when it does the sheer speed of thinking he she or it could achieve with a quantum computer, will be a turning point for humanity, good or bad.
Science fiction becomes science fact, it's just a matter of time.
This is one of my favorite subjects because I am still convinced of the opposite: That progress has slowed down, and is not nearly as rapid as it used to be during the days when say the helicopter was invented, to bring up your example.
As an exercise, travel back in time 50 years, and compare the world to our present. Obviously there will be differences in technology, but to me the vast majority is in computerization. The rest will look more or less familiar. People have cars, televisions, airplanes (in fast, the SAME airplanes) and you could probably extend that list. They won't have facebook and iPhones, sure. But compared to say human flight, those "inventions" seem really miniscule to me. In some areas you can't help but notice that technology has actually regressed. 40 years ago you could fly from Paris to NYC in 2 hours. In 2015 you are back at the travel speed of the 1960s. In 1965 humanity was on its way to the moon and to operational space stations. Compared to those days we have given up on space exploration. 1965 was the height of nuclear research, a path that has pretty much stagnated since.
Now, take a person from 1965, and let them travel back 50 years. The world they are taken to is VASTLY different. This is a world where a flu epidemic would kill millions. Where human flight was JUST invented, and commercial flying still far off. Where the majority of city traffic was horse drawn. Where people often enough didn't have central plumbing, central heating, refrigeration. Where transatlantic travel took not hours, but weeks. Where the fastest means of telecommunication was the telegraph. Where moving pictures existed, but were a carnival attraction rather than an every day normality.
Compared to the progress we saw from the beginning of the 19th century to say the moon landing, everything that happened since then is sad stagnation. It is no wonder that the visions of the future from say the 1950s and 1960s imagined fantastic worlds straight out of science fiction by 2000, considering the amazing pace of progress they had experienced in their lifetime. To steal from someone who argues along the same lines, "we were promised flying cars, and what we got was 140 characters".
The Concorde burned up way too much fuel, it was loud (and hence only used on transatlantic flights), had all sorts of environmental issues (such as harming the ozone layer) and relied on government support to make up for the cost of building and maintaining a drastically reduced number, only becoming profitable later on. It might have been a technological achievement but a very shortsighted one. It's like saying I could save half the time on my work commute by installing a bulldozer blade in front of my car and flooring the gas. It's great, but I just destroyed half a highway.
In 2015 we have operational space stations, new countries are planning manned missions to the moon with unmanned ones already underway by the EU, Russia, China, India and Japan, and the UAE is trying to send an orbiter to Mars. If you were in any of those countries in 1965, except for Russia, you weren't going anywhere. NASA is getting ready for Moon Program 2: Electric Boogaloo with the Orion program making its first test launch last year. Now for the first time, you and I can go to space as well, assuming you and I have either a really trusting bank or a few hundred thousand dollars. But that was completely unattainable 50 years ago, where it was strictly government work with only the best of the best of the best from the US and USSR who were going to be going to space. We have anything but given up on space exploration.
Nuclear... we're in a lull. Blame Chernobyl, Fukushima and the Simpsons. But we do have all sorts of other alternative-energy developments. Maglev trains in China, Japan and Korea. The Tesla, which I'll get to in a bit.
But anyways, these are all the pinnacle of our technology, but let's go back to your example of the regular world, then and now. A person from 1965 would definitely see the differences, just as they would see the differences in 1915. Diseases from their time like the measles are almost nonexistent. We can conduct surgeries with lasers. We can bomb people with robot planes and plan their route with military satellites. We have cars that make so little noise it has to be included artificially, and ones that you can plug in are commonplace and spreading.
I actually saw one of the Tesla supercharging stations (the fast ones, not the regular ones that take hours to charge your car), in rural New Hampshire. Farms everywhere, not exactly first-rate when it comes to tech, but feel free pass through, grab a bite to eat, and when you get back to your car it's nearly topped off.
About a decade from now (actually 5 years, but let's plan for the worst), we won't even need to drive the cars around anymore.
As for what the Internet has given us, it's far more than just knowing who was the 43rd President of Mexico. The same magic rectangle that does that can also summon me a random person off the street who will take me to my destination, during which time I can have a nice chat about the technological developments of the day with people who don't live on the same continent as me and might see differently. The speed of my rectangle and others' are all averaged together so if I, or someone else wanted to, could check traffic on any given road in real time.
And I think it's not just the knowledge but the speed at which we get it and the near-infinite potential it affords us that we're able to glean all this information, everything we've had, and decide it's not enough.
Also, a funny side note on TV's: If you really wanted to blow a 1965 person's mind, you show them a house with a 72-inch TV in the bathroom, turn on the TV and show that the number of available channels has gone from ~3 to >1000, and then say that it's actually the low end of modern entertainment (compared to near-infinite number of streams, TV shows, movies, games, whatnot available on a PC with an internet connection). I don't know if they'd consider it magic, but it would definitely be awe inspiring.
The reason why the Concorde failed (or why we stopped exploring space, or why we are still flying planes from the 70s, or why we are still driving the same cars, but with bluetooth) are irrelevant. I am describing simply THAT all that happened, and that those are signs of technological slow down.
All the counter examples you brought are from the future, and I like I said earlier, I mostly share a (mildly) positive view of technological progress in the future thanks to companies like Space X and Tesla, renewable energies, and actually applicable uses of AI like self driving cars. If all those come to fruit, that we are finally back on real progress. But we still leave behind us decades of slowdown.
Except that it is not irrelevant at all. Can we (techically) fly between NY and Paris in less than an hour? Hell yeah. Easily. It's just not commercially viable to do so. The same for all kinds of other things that are technically possible, but commercially a bad idea (like Pets.com). Saying we are technologically in the same spot is nonsense.
People have put forward examples, including the internet, which is imho single-handedly, the most important invention of the 20th century (more important even than the washing machine, which is my no. 2, and the transistor on 3). However, the process through which things like PCs, notebooks and smartphones (including all fusions such as tablets, phablets, netbooks, etc. etc.) became possible at all is miniaturization, which shows NO SIGN OF STOPPING. In fact, at the nano-level things are only looking up. However, the way we perform computation is changing, and it is more subtle than most people notice. Sure, you will hear that your spanking new gaming station has a 4-core CPU, or a 16-core GPU, and that your smartphone has a snapdragon octacore processor, but you don't stop to wonder what that means: it means that instead of speeding up how fast a sequence of commands is executed, it means that we are now speeding up how many commands can be run at the same time. This is only getting more, as networking is allowing everything to mesh together into one big Internet of Things (buzzword, sure, sue me). As the internet of things and ubiquitous computing become more prevalent (smartphones are a first step), embedded systems will be everywhere and communicating information, largely using a gradual evolution of internet technology (just as modern transistors are gradual evolutions of the clunky transistors of the 50s). Our ability to increasingly manipulate matter at the nano-scale is also revolutionizing medicine.
However, I still don't believe in the singularity. As a specialist in AI, I thoroughly believe that we have full control over what we are doing. We are also a long way from a system that can be said to be intelligent at a human level (and another related question is what that even means). Yes, we have some serious ethical dilemmas, and there will undoubtedly be a number of fubars along the way, and we might wipe ourselves out in the process. However, I don't think there will ever be a point in the future where things change so radically and in so short a time that we can call it a singularity. We won't suddenly wake up to robot overlords, being replaced by superhumans or cyborgs or whatever else people dream up as a big bad boogy man (or a wonderful new age). However, technological speedup is definitely still happening. It is just not as immediately obvious as flying machines and TV screens.
To put recent technological advance into perspective, what would you call an entity that can do large multiplications as fast as you can tell it the numbers, tell you where any city in the world is and summarize its history, tell you about the various opposing schools of thought on most philosophical topics and play a perfect game of Yahtzee?
Savant? Superior AI? Nope, teenager with a smartphone.
On July 14 2015 05:17 SoSexy wrote: Ahah! I simply assumed there was some kind of hidden command like 'merge folders' or something. Too optimistic
There is! It's the 'move' command with a wildcard *, like I said.
On July 15 2015 06:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Does anyone still say gl hf gg or is it all gl hf now?
According to my experience, the percentage of people going for "gl hf gg" is around the same as "glgl" (or variations), and lower than the percentage of people not typing anything.
On July 15 2015 07:02 Mindcrime wrote: gging at the start of a game is dumb
Why? You're wishing your opponent 3 things:
1. Good luck 2. Fun 3. A good game, so if he doesn't have luck at least he doesn't feel like he lost to a bullshit strat (then he won't suspect your bullshit strat)
On July 15 2015 08:25 Mindcrime wrote: Have you ever seen someone playing a sport in real life tell an opponent "good game" before the game?
In combat sports it's common for the ref to say something to that effect with a touching of gloves similar to the high five "gg" at the end of most games, but I was always put off by the pre-game "gg" too. Especially by terrans who float and PF long after they have lost. I blame MKP.
On July 15 2015 06:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Does anyone still say gl hf gg or is it all gl hf now?
According to my experience, the percentage of people going for "gl hf gg" is around the same as "glgl" (or variations), and lower than the percentage of people not typing anything.
I'm on of the "glgl" ones, but only if my opponent types anything first (even if it is "fuck you asshole", being silly or whatever, I still go "glgl").
I think the foreigners mainly did "gl hf", and the "gg" at the start of the game was mainly a Korean thing? Then the foreigners started going "gg" at the start to seem Korean, and then I guess they did all three just for good measure.
On July 15 2015 06:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Does anyone still say gl hf gg or is it all gl hf now?
According to my experience, the percentage of people going for "gl hf gg" is around the same as "glgl" (or variations), and lower than the percentage of people not typing anything.
I'm on of the "glgl" ones, but only if my opponent types anything first (even if it is "fuck you asshole", being silly or whatever, I still go "glgl").
I think the foreigners mainly did "gl hf", and the "gg" at the start of the game was mainly a Korean thing? Then the foreigners started going "gg" at the start to seem Korean, and then I guess they did all three just for good measure.
I am not sure if my memory is playing tricks on me but I think a decade or so ago "hf gl" was more common or at least equally common to "gl hf". Nowadays it seems 99% of people use "gl hf" O_o
EPT
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Apache_helicopter_in_flight.jpg)
