Slashdot Mirror

I knew this:
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

Just keep hitting refresh and you get a different paper each time.

Curious point, pasting one of these articles on the page at
http://montana.informatics.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/fsi /fsi.cgi

I got this result:

"This text had been classified as
AUTHENTIC
with a 93.7% chance of being an authentic paper"

Either the generator is very good or the authenticator very bad.

http://montana.informatics.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/fsi /fsi.cgi

Copy-paste this like 10-15 times in the box -

"Paste any text in the textbox. The chance that your submission is a human-written authentic scientific document will be output. Text over 50% chance will be classified as authentic."

AND YOU GET -

This text had been classified as
AUTHENTIC
with a 95.3% chance of being an authentic paper

It passed with a "90.1% of being an authentic paper.

You know, the one that verifies whether a comment is from a 'real person' or from a 'offworlder', also known as 'troll'.

Too bad the prototype at http://montana.informatics.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/fsi /fsi.cgi thinks most comments are too short...

Roel

Of course, what the article doesn't tell you is that they said that to him after he asked 50 times "how do I start process daemons like a web server" in the Gnome IRC channel. The whole context tells the real story and sometimes that does happen on IRC. Just like in the case of Ryan Holt and his balloons. Slashdot, stop being such a "hype" news source. Besides, you can get that kind of snobbish attitude "anywhere
".

On the other hand, I think the real barrier with Linux IS the Linux snobs, but in a different way. I was just talking about this on the BLUG mailing list two weeks ago. Many of you are too wrapped up in playing with the latest transparent desktop that you forget that it is important to support companies that do start adopting Linux and providing real value. A major reason why places like Micro Center start carrying Linspire PCs, but don't train anybody on them is because they are test it to see if it will make money. When it comes down to it, companies need to make money (big surprise there). Yet, everytime someone tries to start something around Linux open source, half the community starts acting suspicious and picking apart everything that company does. Sometimes this is warranted (read SCO), but most of the time it is not. Unless you expect Communism to be adopted in the United States anytime soon, you need to backup what YOU support with your own MONEY if you want to see the economy go your way.

All of you need to stop talking the talk and start backing up your shit with rea
l action.

It's still around.

Here are some mirrors!

http://groups.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/msg /d364afd75f736cf7
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel /0603.3/2627.html
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=114 386596009004&w=2
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel /635456#635456

There we go!

here's a wobble yoke flash animation.

can't find a picture of a swashplate engine but here's the old dyna-cam patent. It's not particularly clear what they're talking about but nobody seems to have online pictures. Scroll down this page about halfway and they have a cross-section drawn. If you do an image search on google under 'dyna-cam engine' you'll see what they were working on.

>For a game, the best way to solve ODEs is numerically. Since you don't need the >precision of the exact solution, the solutions are considerably simpler >computationally once you've linearized them. Doing RK4 on the fly is precisely >the best solution to the problem.


While RK4 is a good general purpose integrator, it's better to use embedded methods that will speed up the runtime due to adaptive stepsizing.

http://beige.ucs.indiana.edu/B673/node54.html


Also, I would speculate that most games might involve functions that evolve with a steady stiffness. For such methods, it's faster better to do a Jacobian based Rosenbrock Method (Kaps Wanner basically) on large intervals and then do a Bulirsch-Stoer rational extrpolation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_integration

I can't find any good references to this online, but I'm just parrotting Numerical Recipes Chapter 16.


>solving a linearized ODE is just plain ol' ordinary matrix math, very >parallelizeable

Well linearization will only work well near a fixed point of the phase space. Generic ODEs are not as simple to parallelize it as one may think. Data parallelization is trivial (provided your libraries/subroutines are thread-safe). However, really solid function parallelization of the integration of a particular set of IC's across one time interval is very difficult as a differential equation evolves causally through time. Thus, in order to know what's what at time T, you'll need to know all the values at earlier times t<T so a parallel thread has to wait for those other parallel threads to finish, making it pointless.


What you CAN do of course is parallelize the step incrementation process itself, however you run into the same problem during the calculation of each term in a particular RK step increment. If you look at the formulae (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Runge-KuttaMethod.ht ml)

You need k1 to calculate k2, k2 to calculate k3 & so on. Thus, the k2 calculating thread has to wait for the k1 thread to finish etc etc.

So I don't think parallelizing this will help much.

I'll admit that I have never done any functional parallelization of ODE's myself, as I use GSL/numerical recipes that are not multithreaded (though thread-safe) , so I do not have any first hand info on how much it's going to speed up the program .

There has been some talk of parallelizing GSL itself

( http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/~jw/para04/Abstracts/enriqu e_s_quintana/enrique_s_quintana.html
)

though again I don't know if there has been any concrete progress.

Yes it does -- you can compare results between China, France, Germany, and the United States.

Try going to the site and search for the word peace, telling it to compare the results between the United States and Germany -- there are over twice as many sites returned in Germany than the United States.

There are millions to hundreds of millions of atoms in a typical virus. Here is interesting virus simulation info

Oh yeah, I know (hope?) you're joking, but modelling millions of atomic interactions is, as they say, nontrivial.

Remember folks, when you're asking questions and not being a patriot: you're letting the terrorists win.

America's pissing in the wind. Stop being silent and start asking questions.

Some people need to read this: http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.h tml

The school in question is Western Washington University. indiana.edu The class is Programming on the Go B490, taught by Kay Connelly. (She also happens to be the Associate Director of the Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research)

It's not like this is the first thing you've heard about UK oppression. There was that memo sent out... about 220 years ago.. you must have not gotten it. It's even in my sig!

If you don't have institutional access, the original paper is here: Observation of nuclear fusion driven by a pyroelectric crystal.

You'd think an additional 400M would be rather obvious.

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?...

As for adopting the ways of the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconcilliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body.

There are certainly people who are ripping music/movies/software for kicks, their own usage, or to share with friends/family -- but they are not part of my scene. I'm doing it because I do not support the idea of intellectual property. Period. Call me an extremist if you will, I think my ideas are less radical than most of the people demonstrating in the media for this that and the other.

I think that anything man can think of he should share with his fellow man. I should get paid for my service, and my labor, but I completely disapprove of people OWNING ideas. Millions die each year because of patents on medicine. Millions live in poverty because of their lack of access (no pun intended) to productivity enhancing machinery and software. I don't know that anyone dies because they can't hear the latest Kanye West song, but I object tot he fact that the industry deliberately surpresses musicians whose ideas are not "commercial" enough. I'm convinced that powerful media companies war against media they do not/cannot own, and this affects us because we are limited in our choices to whom the powerful media companies are willing to present to us.

And they do this because of the money involved. Only by making their products equally (in)valuable to the products that I want access too, can I be assured of access to everything. I think the system is broken, and the only way it can be repaired is to demonstrate to everyone how actually broken it is. I am doing what I can to bring down the system.

Call me a jackass all you want -- I think of myself as a citizen. This is my civil disobedience. There are others like me, and considering the damage one person can do to copyrights, with our infantile technology now -- imagine how much damage we can do to copyright in 20 years, with 100 recruits. P2P now is about gaining those recruits, but eventually, we WILL crush copyright.

We're here, we share. get used to it.

Interestingly enough, it is trivial for an Analog Computer to pick out CAPCHA text. A professor at Indiana University is making some good progress in that department, this is his home page. So... no, CAPCHA text couldn't hide stuff, assuming an implementation of this. Yea, its not automated yet (or maybe is, I dunno, I only say an hour's talk about it), but if this could be, you'd need a better way to hide. My recomendation is to go back to the basics. Dial in to a server you know is good, and don't put it online. Then they'd have to dial-in themselves, ok, probably trivial to find it, but still. At least you know you can't spider to it.

We are not exactly dealing with The New England Journal of Medicine here. The first thing you see on the site is an invitation to visit the LiveScience store. It would appear that the purpose of this article is to sell something.

The arteries in the retina are the only arteries directly visible in the human body and physicians have been looking at them ever since von Helmolzvon Helmholtz invented the direct ophthalmoscope in 1851. This is the unit with which your doctor peers into your eye using one of his own. Unfortunately, due to the intractability of Snell's LawSnell's Law less than 10 degrees of retina can be seen. A good explanation of the exam is located here.here.. Should the doctor use both eyes with an indirect ophthalmoscope such as is used during retinal surgery considerably more retina can be seen but the image is aerial and cannot be photographed directly. Nevertheless a good retinal camera, taking multiple views which are then pieced together can provide a map of the retinal vessels. The gold standard for this sort of thing in diabetes was the Airlie House Classification developed in 1968.1968.. A modern study modern study might involve 7-field stereoscopic color photographs to get an accurate map. Accurate results cannot be produced with a single picture through an undilated pupil in an aging population suspected of disease. The way to diagnose hypertension is with a blood pressure cuff. The way to diagnose diabetes is with a blood test.

More: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~jsobel/c455-c511.update d.txt about a guy who wrote the "Fast Multiplication" algorithm very simply in scheme, and then transformed it (using correctness preserving transformations, which are much much easier to do in "Haskell or one of the other functional languages" than in C/C++ and friends) into scheme code that was as optimized as he could come up with, and which furthermore had a pretty much 1-1 correspondence with C statements. He then rewrote it in C (including perfect "goto"s!), and beat all but one person in his class on the speed of the algorithm. Furthermore, he spent significantly less time working on (read debugging) his code than anyone else in the class.

Actually, it's not even correct to say it.
% of population infected in many african countries is >20%, with 8% overall. Among the north american population it's around 2%:

Africa:
http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/aidsinafrica/aidsin africa.html
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/infectiou s_diseases/aids/africa.html

North America:
http://medicine.indiana.edu/news_releases/archive_ 00/mm6F_STDs.html
http://www.tgsrm.org/HIV-AIDS.html

Authorizations of force are not 'declared wars'. The War Powers Act is very clear on this point.

It is the duty of any moral individual to seek to change that law, and to resist it in the meanwhile.

Ghandi disagreed. Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, Jr disagreed. Rosa Parks disagreed. Various locales in Scandanavia disagreed while the Nazis were hanging out in town. Thomas Paine wasn't all that thrilled with the concept, either.

If Microsoft refuses to comply with Chinese laws concerning censorship, do you really think it will affect those laws?

Nope, but it would be the morally correct thing to do. But Bill Gates values money above all else. That's the American way.

And, in the meanwhile, Microsoft would almost certainly lose traction...traction which can later help in influencing laws when there's a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing anything on that front.

This is one of the dumber concepts ever posted on /. - that MS is secretly planning to effect social change in China. Ain't in the works - Bill doesn't value freedom or individual rights: if the RIAA/MPAA started to care about freedom and rights then Bill may give a rat's uvula but otherwise, never.

Microsoft can't do a damned thing about the Chinese government's oppression of free speech and they know it

They could always pay ~cough~ "fines", wink wink, to satisfy the officials... but they don't.

their next duty is to avoid doing harm to themselves, their employees, and their stockholders all in the name of futility.

Or they could pull out of the market. But that would cost MS too much money. MS is seeking money first - as corporations should do - but are helping prevent the spread of freedom. That's the choice MS made. It sucks and is wrong. Just admit it and don't try to justify Bill.

That's called civil disobediance.

Clearly you asked the wrong Oracle.

"Actually, didn't you revolve so that you wouldn't need to pay taxes to England ?"

Don't they teach history in schools anymore? If you want to know why we rebelled against our previous government, please read the list of grievances we typed up and emailed to the leader of our former government (in a manner of speaking). It reads like an 18th century Dear John letter to the King.

Are you feeling a bit subjugated and trod-upon these days?
It's time to read this.

...he could well be, som e data suggests that as many as one male in 200 is his descendant http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is _6_163/ai_97997816

also http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/khandna.ht ml

Intelligent design's criticism of evolution is that Darwin's gradual change over time doesn't seem to match the fossil record very well.

No, it isn't. The criticism is that there are certain aspects of biological and biochemical system that could not have evolved.

Any criticism that is based on the fossil record is hard to accept, because the fossil record is not a good sample of past life forms and never will be - with a few exceptions fossilisation is a very rare event. We are lucky to find anything at all.

All religious issues aside (which is hard for most people, so bear with me), ID is falsifiable if someone can demonstrate a creature evolving through chance with no intervention from intelligent beings.

No, it isn't. First of all, evolution is not just a matter of chance. There is a designer in evolution - natural selection. Chance simply gives the range of options which can be selected from. Secondly, there have been plenty of examples and explanations of complex features evolving, but ID proponents simply refuse to accept the evidence. I heard ID supporters still say things like "the eye is too complex to have evolved in steps" when the mechanisms by which this can happen have been understood for years.

Gradual evolution can be falsified if one can show a creature rapidly evolve. In fact, given the large number of species on the planet, even given the long time scale for evolution, odds are pretty high that evolution in action will be caught on tape, so to speak, at some point, and then the question resolved. (And no, I'm not talking about microevolution.)

It has been. The question IS resolved. There has been recent observation of changes in finch beak lengths:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/vid.wdns.h tml

All evolution is microevolution. All evolution is gradual. What looks like 'macro' or rapid is simply microevolution taking place over a relatively short time.

To give an example of how things can appear 'macro', it would be possible for a mouse to evolve to the size of an elephant in steps far to small to be seen even over several human lifetimes, but this would still happen in a period too small to be seen in the fossil record! I find this astonishing, but it is true.

Anyone who thinks that the fossil record is any evidence for 'macroevolution' does not understand the incredible timescales involved.

If you can demonstrate that random processes and death can create higher order signals, then ID is false since ID's basic premise is that it is impossible for a complex singal to arise spontaneously.

Again, this irrelevant. Evolution is not a random process. It involves selection. For example, the peacock's tail did not evolve at random - females actively selected the bigger tails.

If you want evidence for order appearing spontaneously out of random processes, I suggest you take a look at chaos theory, and things like the development of vortices in flows, or magnetic domain formation. There is plenty of evidence of order spontaneously arising, but the IDer/Creationists seem to be either ignorant or deliberately ignoring this.

I seriously get aggravated at the editorializing on Slashdot sometimes. It amazes me how people can post while being ignorant of the actual debate.

I would suggest that coming up suggestions that evolution is a random process is a sign of being ignorant about important aspects of the debate. This is a common and understandable ignorance (as evolution is taught so badly), but does not put someone in a position to be critical of others.

Though the article makes a brief reference to insects' mating vocalizations, it really doesn't capture the image of a male fruit fly running after a female with his wings out as he frantically "sings" to her. In doing a quick search for the genes responsible for producing the correct song in D. melanogaster I stumbled across this appropriately named gene.

of course

The allegory interpretion, while widely disseminated, is most likely untrue. The fount of all things urband legend (snopes) dismisses it, as does this more scholarly analysis.

It's not Mozilla, its W3. I hope that explains it.

I'm probably in the minority, being a librarian a with a good opinion of Wikipedia. Many (mostly older) librarians, for example, relish their roles as gatekeepers to information. I suppose it comes from the old warden-style approach to protecting books, or some sort of warped view of taking "information is power" as a need to hoard and protect its distribution.

There is this sometimes misguided need to teach "information literacy," with exaggerated assumptions about "kids believing everything they read online." Recent library conferences have covered this alongside how students learn and use technology -- often with the same sort of bemused condescension that 19th century anthropologists exhibited toward alien cultures. It's unnerving. But teaching others to evaluate information themselves, rather than thinking it's our job to do it for them, is on the right track. History as shown a path towards direct and open access to information, and I see wiki publishing as a direct extension of this trend.

Librarians, in general, seem stuck on the "omg you can vandalize Wikipedia so it's worthless" argument. Jimbo even got asked, at the last ALA conference, essentially, "What's to stop me from distrupting information in Wikipedia?," by a librarian. And this is the profession so disturbed by book bannings? I just don't see libraries staying relevant if we don't acknowledge the value of blogs, wikis, and other new information formats (and we're not quite there yet).

Of course, those story links are nitpicks themselves. Library stuff (if it exists on your topic) is of better quality than what you'll find via Google. As for Wikipedia, content zealots -- both snobs and censors -- threaten the open encyclopedia's mission at least as much as the cranks. But there's no need to exaggerate the problems of Wikipedia. Sure, it can get messy, but the benefits far outweigh the costs.

As another frontiersman was warned, "If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."

So anyway, all of these comments are a bit of a hyperbolism. As a piece on peak libraries I started shows (oh yeah, that's a library science Wiki btw), I'm something of a provocateur at times. It's just that, after spending my early career trying to educate everyone that librarians are "with it", I've discovered that there's just as much of a need to convince librarians to get with the times.

I'm not a Christian, never have been, but it's part and parcel of the Declaration of Independence (Creator anyone?) and the Constitution (God anyone?).

What are you talking about? Neither of the words "god" or "creator" occur even once in the US Constitution. Meanwhile, in the Declaration of Independence the actual terms that occur are "Nature's God" and "Creator" - neither of which says a ringy-ding-ding about a Christian God. Certainly there is NO mention of Christ, Messiah, Yahweh, Prophet, Bodhisattva, Kalima, or any other specific diety or divine office.

Furthermore, there is no indication whatsoever, and plenty of indication to the contrary, in those documents that religion - any religion - should even be acknowledged by the state.

This is where Scalia and his claims of being a "strict constructionist" fall apart. For the most part his words and deeds match, but once religion comes into the picture he's just waving his hands and hoping nobody examines his justifications too closely, because when you do, you see just how far he has to reach to bring his god into the arena.

Can you really call longitudinal waves coherent

Since you can't amplify atoms, you really can't get a sonic laser

the entire science of interferometry

or even monochromatic

"laser" is one of those fancy new buzzwords

> they can be used [to] ...

More to the point, they can be used to kill politicians (http://www.fixedearth.com/hlsm.html)
when they commit atrocities (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration. html)
in order to halt that injustice.

Uhm, dude?

Congrats on your +5 Insightful, despite having many wrong and overly biased points.

America is always at some kind of crossroads. And you know what? It usually comes out pretty okay.

Talk to anyone in their 70s. They will all say the political climate today is INSANE. That politics around Vietnam were nowhere near as corrupted as things are today. We have religious right senators talking at Baptist Conventions on Sundays during the services, for peats sake, trying to build an extreme view of religion into the goverment. Our President, despite turning the world into a terror-filled place takes the longest vacations in US Presidential history. He should be impeached, but our own congress is too scared for their selfish reasons to stand up against this guy. Bush's actions have killed more Muslims/persons than Bin Laden, or Saddam. This will never be reported in the US news, though the entire world knows this. It's true- add it up. Why do you think everyone hates us? The conservatives are against abortion but don't mind at all killing 10's of thousands of Iraqi women and children, almost 2,000 US soldiers, or anyone else. I have yet to understand how that is in any way 'morals.'

The point being, this is a conservative country. Get used to it. It's always been that way, going back to its founding - remember, this country exists because people needed somewhere to go to practice their religion. The freedom to not practice religion was added later.

You couldn't be more wrong. Read the Declaration of Independence sometime and get back to me. This country was formed by persons RUNNING AWAY from crazy rulers/dicators like BUSH. LIBERAL. How more liberal can you get other than leaving across the Atlantic Ocean to get away from over-ruling leaders? If you read this document outloud on a public news station, you would probably be arrested under the Patriot Act. Read it- though I know no conservatives believe in this document, sadly enough.

Yes. The declaration of independence is a good one.

the national average for killowatt hour costs last year was 8.7 cents per KW hour. but many places it's well over 10 cents/kw hour. It will be rising sharply since the new clean-coal laws were passed this year as well as the price of natural gas going up due to the war.

Except this isn't a program in all of the US, it's a program in Indiana. The best electric rates I could get are from 1999, which puts the rates at just where I said, between 6 and 7 cents/kilowatt hour. See
http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2001/oct-nov01/de tails.html

When I measure the current it, draw 11.4 amps average current on average. so thats 130 watts

You must have a very powerfull machine, or you're measuring it while playing a game. Most PCs at idle don't use much power. The processor and graphics chips only draw large amounts of power when performing calculations. Most of the time the PC is going to be idle. See:
http://www.macalester.edu/cit/faq/power_usage.html
for actual numbers.

add on a monitor and were up around 200 watts.

LCDs are cheap enough that most new computers for business are coming with them because of the smaller space, and decreased power usage. At most an LCD uses 40 watts, many use far less.

With AC the efficiency of the unit under ideal conditions is not the measure of how it performs under actual conditions. You are assuming that the cooling power needed is delivered in a perfect fashtion to where it is needed.

I actually never stated any conclusion about heating costs. I'm merely pointing out that they're far less than 1/1. You can nitpick about perfect efficiency, but the costs are obviously far less than 1/1.

your're right about the 300K->500K slip up, though the estimate is essentially correct given the stated inputs. You just want to use different inputs.

So being off by a factor of 1.66 is "essentially correct"? That's a big amount to be off by for something to be correct. When you order a dinner and they're off by 66% in telling you how much it costs is that "essentially correct"?

aside from a quibble over the AC its essentially correct.

A factor of two is a "quibble"? He's dead wrong about doubling costs for cooling. He's wrong from a thermodynamic perspective, and a usage perspective. Add up all those large errors, and you get one big huge error.

Mod this up! This sort of technique really came in handy when I needed to add some arrows to a LaTeX figure just before submitted a research paper for review last week. The necessary steps:

1. Google for "draw lines in eps". Result: Drawing and Filling Shapes
2. Read just enough to get going.
3. Insert the few commands at the end of the eps file in a simple text editor.
4. ...?
5. profit!

All in all, it took maybe 30 minutes to go from 0 to 60. A very powerful tool. Also not bad for editing captions, labels, etc. -- Paul

A poster farther up asks "how many tin foil hat types think theres a connection with today's bombings"... All things considered, I find the coincidence of today's bombings somewhat disturbing. If history is to be considered, then there is good reason to question whether or not there is a connection.

How much farther does this idiocy have to go before the proles wake up. Aside from a new and improved Asshole Act, I wonder what monstrous retaliation awaits the next targets of our country's arrogant and foolhardy wrath.

If knowledge is power, then ignorance must be impotence. So I beg you to do what you can in that regard, at least. Share the knowledge. Encourage the ideals. Stand by your neighbors. Voice your opinion. Be disobedient if you must.

Need some red pills for your trapped friends and family? Perhaps these will help:

The Law, Frederic Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

No Treason, by Lysander Spooner http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm

An Essay on the Trial by Jury, by Lysander Spooner http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1201

Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

The Declaration of Independence http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.h tml

Civil Disobedience http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/civ.dis.html

Common Sense, by Thomas Paine http://www.bartleby.com/133/

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Ettiene de la Boetie http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html

The Discovery of Freedom, Rose Wilder Lane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane

Law of Nations, Vattel http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

Best luck to us all.

C

A poster farther up asks "how many tin foil hat types think theres a connection with today's bombings"... All things considered, I find the coincidence of today's bombings somewhat disturbing. If history is to be considered, then there is good reason to question whether or not there is a connection.

How much farther does this idiocy have to go before the proles wake up. Aside from a new and improved Asshole Act, I wonder what monstrous retaliation awaits the next targets of our country's arrogant and foolhardy wrath.

If knowledge is power, then ignorance must be impotence. So I beg you to do what you can in that regard, at least. Share the knowledge. Encourage the ideals. Stand by your neighbors. Voice your opinion. Be disobedient if you must.

Need some red pills for your trapped friends and family? Perhaps these will help:

The Law, Frederic Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

No Treason, by Lysander Spooner http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm

An Essay on the Trial by Jury, by Lysander Spooner http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1201

Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

The Declaration of Independence http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.h tml

Civil Disobedience http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/civ.dis.html

Common Sense, by Thomas Paine http://www.bartleby.com/133/

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Ettiene de la Boetie http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html

The Discovery of Freedom, Rose Wilder Lane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane

Law of Nations, Vattel http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

Best luck to us all.

C

Now if I could only map "caps lock" to delete, where God and the MIT Lisp Machines knew it should be.

you can swap control and caps lock: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~jfieber/osx/

I think you missed the GP's point...

Now if I could only map "caps lock" to delete, where God and the MIT Lisp Machines knew it should be.

you can swap control and caps lock: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~jfieber/osx/

You might try some of these. http://mozilla.isc.org/pub/mozilla.org/ http://mozilla.ussg.indiana.edu/pub/mozilla.org/ http://mozilla.osuosl.org/pub/mozilla.org/

So.. you really think that letters like this would convince a judge to allow a site to be taken down?

Then again, you're probably right. Instead of clogging the courts with that website operators that receive baseless DMCA takedown notices should clog the courts with civil suits for any and all damages incurred by the site being taken down. At the very least that should make the DMCA senders actually think before sending out notices instead of running random searches and sending them at even a sign of a hit.

Governments are put in place to do the things that private citizens and corporations can't do on their own: enforce order, build roads, provide for the common defense, etc.

Says who?

Umm, Thomas Jefferson, as well as 8,000 years of human history. When a private citizen or corporation becomes strong enough to do the above, they're called a Government ("King" and "Republic" respectively).

Mississippi State University has a good program, both in Computer Science and Computer Engineering, that focuses on Computer Graphics and Scientific Visualization. They also have a close working relationship with the DoD's 4 supercomputing centers (MSRC's) via the PET program. You can find info on the DOD, MSRC's, & PET on http://aspen.ucs.indiana.edu/pet/

From the Internet Oracle Best of Digests :

The Usenet Oracle has pondered your question deeply. Your question was:

Oh omnipotent oracle! If there were a single molecule from a forgotten oraclelean 10,000-year-old fart I would not be worthy to inhale it! Timorously, I ask you:

If you drop a buttered piece of bread, it will fall on the floor butter-side down. If a cat is dropped from a window or other high and towering place, it will land on it's feet.

But what if you attach a buttered piece of bread, butter-side up to a cat's back and toss them both out the window? Will the cat land on it's feet? Or will the butter splat on the ground?

-Mike

And in response, thus spake the Oracle:

Even if you are too lazy to do the experiment yourself you should be able to deduce the obvious result. The laws of butterology demand that the butter must hit the ground, and the equally strict laws of feline aerodynamics demand that the cat can not smash it's furry back. If the combined construct were to land, nature would have no way to resolve this paradox. Therefore it simply does not fall.

That's right you clever mortal (well, as clever as a mortal can get), you have discovered the secret of antigravity! A buttered cat will, when released, quickly move to a height where the forces of cat-twisting and butter repulsion are in equilibrium. This equilibrium point can be modified by scraping off some of the butter, providing lift, or removing some of the cat's limbs, allowing descent.

Most of the civilized species of the Universe already use this principle to drive their ships while within a planetary system. The loud humming heard by most sighters of UFOs is, in fact, the purring of several hundred tabbies.

The one obvious danger is, of course, if the cats manage to eat the bread off their backs they will instantly plummet. Of course the cats will land on their feet, but this usually doesn't do them much good, since right after they make their graceful landing several tons of red-hot starship and pissed off aliens crash on top of them.

You owe the Oracle two slices of toast and a bag of kitty litter.