Slashdot Mirror

Hey, if Google's mission really is to collect all of the information on earth, how soon will it be before Ashcroft's Total Information Awareness ploy causes him to declare eminent domain and seize Google for national interests?

"Google has vowed not to do evil, but evildoers will do evil by exploiting Google. We must stop the evildoers by destroying their evil tool."

Actually, both pronounciations are right, according to The jargon file, but it's really a matter of preference.

That's "shiny".

Anyone with an oedipal complex knows what the triology was really about. How many times did we see Marty in bed with his hot mother (or hot maternal kin) next to him?

The word markup doesn't mean layout. It can sometimes, but it certainly doesn't in a web development context (or do you think that the 'Markup' in XML is talking about layout as well?)

In computerised document preparation, a method of adding information to the text indicating the logical components of a document, or instructions for layout of the text on the page or other information which can be interpreted by some automatic system.

-- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=markup

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith">Fa ith 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. This (IMNSHO) is the meaning that most people ascribe to faith when used in a sentence like the one in the parent post. That seems to make your statement somewhat contradictory.

Contradictions notwithstanding, what exactly do you mean by "any other method?" Witch doctors casting bones or reading entrails? New age mystics discussing vibrations and resonance with Art Bell?

Ah, vocabulary provocation.

To kill 1 in 10 is only one of the possible meanings of decimate. Dictionary.com

For example, decimate can be used to describe the 'decimation' of the Jews in Europe in WWII, despite the percentage genocide being over 90%. And the Romans aren't the only ones who needed the 'special' word, variants of decimate and decimation appear in other languages.

Dictionary

How is this different from soundex? For decades, databases of names have been stored in soundex. If your driver's license number begins with letter-number-number-number, it is probably soundex. If you have done any ancestry searching, as I have, you have encountered soundex; this way, if you search for John Smith in 1732, you will find records for Juan Smyth, Jon Smythe, John Smitt, etc.

The benefits of having actual sound? If it's just going to use a soundex-type formula in the core functioning, the sound would just be a gimmick, and a storage-taking one at that. Sure, compression has gotten amazing, but will the sound of Smith really take anything near the same 4 bytes as "S720" ??

> > "nature itself makes it plain that we're different (as in "special") from other species"
> In what way? Intelligence? We are not the most intelligent animal
> ...
> science has shown that distinction to belong to a creature of the sea, not use. We just happen
> to be among the higher

Yes - intelligence. But primarily - morality. Don't you think that percepts like "do not murder" or "do not covet what is someone else's" or "love your neighbour as you would love yourself" are inherently "good", and worthy of being obeyed? You don't exactly decide to obey them after examining the results of sophisticated genetic-algorithm societial simulation -- you just "know" they are "good" - right?

BTW, what "sea-animal" is it that you say is more intelligent than human beings? And how was this determined?

> > "Fetuses feel pain, sleep, play - they *are* sentient."
> Interesting, it'd more interesting if we were
> talking about fetuses and not embryo but hey
> this is slashdot right?
Right :). I apologize. You guys were talking about embryos, and I spoke about fetuses by mistake (a fetus is definied here as an unborn baby older than eight weeks). Do you support aborting embryos but not aborting fetuses? Also, what is your position on the partial birth abortion procedure on fetuses (described in my previous post and repeated below for convenience)?
_____________________
Fetuses feel pain, sleep, play - they *are* sentient. In fact, some fetuses killed in a Partial Birth Abortion procedure are old enough to survive a premature delivery. Yet, the fetus is pulled out of the mother (with the head kept in the vagina so it's not officially "a baby" yet), and THEN aborted. Of course, they wiggle to resist the surgeon's knife as it's jammed into their neck... just as you or I would.
_____________________

In the case of embryos, consider that a Time magazine article ("Inside The Womb", Dec 9, 2002), notes that the embryo at 42 days (or 6 weeks) has nerve endings, a forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain, heart, hand... the embryo's nervous system starts existing at 23 days! Do you support abortions on this unborn child?

> > "This was Hitler's philosophy. Let that, at least, make you pause for thought."
> Simply because hitler believed something that
> means I shouldn't? Sorry I don't work on that
> basis, give me some kind of actual basis for
> your belief that hitler was wrong in this, then
> we'll talk.

Firstly, see point on morality above.

Secondly, empirically-speaking, Nazi Germany and Japan were superior to many other nations. Germany was (still is) an industrial giant compared to the Eastern European countries. Japan was (and still is) an industrial giant compared to the countries to it's west. However, my point is that this does NOT matter. To do right, we have to treat all human beings as equals.

The real reason we know that this position is valid (and you were given a conscience that "knew" this too), is because (switching to a less secular argument here) - God desires us to be merciful. And God hates the arrogant - whether it be Nazis exterminating "lower races" and pushing for "living space", or the Japanese carrying out dissections on living Chinese "logs". WWII was but a mild judgement on them, compared to the one that is to come soon on the entire world.

I really cannot elaborate anymore - if your conscience is already so seared that you still don't get why evil is evil, you're lost. I hope this is not the case.

> I don't believe we should kill off those with
> genetic defects per say, but rather let them
> survive on their own.
Eh? What do you mean? Do you turn out your autistic child to live in caves and scrounge for his own food, while feeding your able-bodied kids (in the hope they will do likewise to you in your old age)?

> I believe in the pursuit of knowledge in it's
> own sake is essential to the survival of the
> species
Yes, pursuit of knowledge is certainly good...
> this is what we have brains for
> (whether you believe some god or nature
> provided them) it's to think,
Yes...
> to reason,
Yes...
> to learn,
Yes...
> to experiment.
Yes, but NOT on other less-fortunate human beings - whether they be embryos or fully-grown Jews and Chinese!

Technically, NWN for Linux is not vaporware, according to the definition:

New software that has been announced or marketed but has not been produced.

GigsVT used the word correctly. Learn what words mean, not what you think they mean.

I don't find that definition to be too clear. On one hand, "cybernetics" by itself may refer both to biological and non-biological systems. However, when used as an adverb in "cybernetic organism," it implies explicit electromechanical augmentation.

The guy's a kook, but at least criticise him for a good reason ;-)

Tim

Please, that is such bullshit. Copy does not necessarily imply "another instance of something to be used". It doesn't imply anything other than what it says: a copy. It does not imply or indicate whether that copy is to be used or kept merely as a safe-guard. Backup means a copy for the purposes of a safe-guard. However, copy does not imply another instance of something to be used.

Stop twisting the language to suite your own -- and the MPAA/RIAA's -- ends.

Please, that is such bullshit. Copy does not necessarily imply "another instance of something to be used". It doesn't imply anything other than what it says: a copy. It does not imply or indicate whether that copy is to be used or kept merely as a safe-guard. Backup means a copy for the purposes of a safe-guard. However, copy does not imply another instance of something to be used.

Stop twisting the language to suite your own -- and the MPAA/RIAA's -- ends.

"Americans" surprised by legal limits on 1st amendment.

abridge

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

the lamest explanation they could use.

It likely the arm of a Terminator contains some distributed neural processing capability consider the Terminator equivalent of muscle memory particularly part of a 'learning machine/computer' with redundant systems and fail-over capability.

The idea of Cyberdyne using off-site disaster recover or fire safe backup vault are also very credible.

Building Terminators requires advances in metallurgy.

There is also the unsettled issue of a batch of steel containing some highly unusually elements, or a part of the liquid metal terminator surviving. There are several clues that detached liquid metal is somewhat autonomous but with reduced effectiveness, how can we be sure it is all accounted for ?

If a T-800 can self repair it is likely a T-1000 Liquid metal terminator can also, perhaps this is become SkyNet.

The final point is that we as outside observers know that despite their best efforts, the future is already set. It cannot be changed, otherwise a cause and effect paradox arises. The idea that the heroes can change anything is an error in their knowledge or percecption.

All that has happened IS history. The T1 & T2 stories, the future fall, the fight for survival, and ultimatly John's victory have already happened.

"Buxom" and "large breasts" are synonymous.

Just FYI.

Someone of your obvious intelligence should be a little more careful before whipping out the word 'ignorant', okay?

Let's look at the title of the article:

Hudson Shipwrecks Found, but No Loose Lips

Did that say shipwrecks? I thought it did. Not tiny little sunken dugout canoes, but shipwrecks.

Then they go on to talk about the various types of ships they're talking about - a 19th century sailing sloop, and revolutionary war vessels. Hey, here's an idea!

SHIP:

1a) A vessel of considerable size for deep-water navigation.
b) A sailing vessel having three or more square-rigged masts.

2) An aircraft or spacecraft.

So uh... right. Please point me to the Native American tribe that built such vessels, and sailed them on the hudson. I'll be right here holding my breath!

Two glaring errors:
1: USA saying that it practices Freedom and Democracy
The US never clamed to be a complete democracy. It was always was intended to be a democratic republic. The point that the Founding Fathers were trying to make is that the average shmub watching "Worlds Scariest Police Chases 3" shouldn't be able to make many choices about monatary policy. Hopefully they can choose someone smarter then them to figure the complicated things out. And the US is free, relative to most of the world. You can stand on the street and say "George W Bush? More like George W Shrub!" all day long, and the CIA will not come for you. Try doing that in China, or Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany, or Saudi Arabia...

2:Private industrial and commercial concerns were not seized and redistributed to the people. That's what socialists believe in.
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy(emphasis mine)
The Nazis were socialists because they siezed control of pretty much the entire industrial output of Germany. They intended to keep that control indefinatly. After they had acquired sufficient land and slaves, their stated intention was to turn Germany into a paradise for the Aryan German workers. The fact that they didn't shoot the people running things, unlike the Russians, just means that they were a little bit smarter about some things then the reds. One of the huge mistakes that the Russians made is that they killed all the leaders of the army and industry shortly before the war. Amazingly, it turns out running a factory or a division is a difficult task that takes skills you can't learn at "Uncle Joe's Communist Summer Camp". But make no mistake, if the CEO of BMW said "I don't feel like making tanks any more, I want to go back to cars", he'd dissappear quickly.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's called /etc/group, and it was invented long before Windows.

If Linux had anything to easier to compare to this I'd be using it (admins being essentially lazy).

Uh, no, that's users who are lazy. Just because you know how to admin, don't mean you're an admin. I run Windoze at home. Why? Because at home, I'm a lazy user. Says nothing about my day job...

The FACT is no one has a better way to administrate and trouble-shoot end-user desktops than Microsoft right now.

Uh, sorry to burst your bubble again, but that's an OPINION. Another opinion is that you're a troll.

HD IT managers actually did a purge of all rouge Linux machines they found on the network maybe about a year or so before I was hired.

And no doubt all the eyeliner and lipstick ones too.

When you call someone ignorant or "uneducated", you are saying that they lack a distinct set of knowledge. When you call someone dumb, you are saying they are incapable of intellectual thought at a normal level and therefore the ability to gain knowledge is not present. Thus someone who is dumb and ignorant of something will never be capable of losing that ignorance while someone who is ignorant but intelligent will be able to erase that ignorance through research. Try to think long and hard about this and don't bother replying anymore since you obviously don't have the game to keep up with me.

I am better than you.

You apologize to the girls you sexually exploited and wish to continue to actively associate with them, all of them

...in an instant message with them...

...and then here, in this place where you think they won't see...

You try to say it was all a joke taken too seriously

You try endlessly to tell the readers that the accusations are false

This does not identify you as a person who is remorseful or sorry in any way

Intriguing...

In fact I think just the opposite, I think you wish for the opportunity to have everyone forget this, so that you can let the heat of the moment carry you away again.

Would you or anyone else think it appropriate to let you forget? To let these people forget?

One, there is no such thing as social diversity. Cultural yes, but society is defined as the total set of ethics and ideals.

If these are significantly diverse, you have no society, simply a group of individuals w/ no common ties, and probably a desire to end each other as a result of no recognition of each other in their familial group.

society... A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

I'm not arguing for zero conformity or unquestioning acceptance here . (I'm fond of Terry Pratchett's observation, on "respecting ethnic folkways", that "some people's ethnic folkways consist of gutting other people like clams".) But I'm sick and tired of hearing the need for social cohesion cited as an excuse for perpetuating social abominations.

Two, the wealthy already have an enormous tax burden.

I don't know what the fix for this is, but a significant amount of money goes to fund our federal government, an entity which was never supposed to have all that much power in the first place.

Dumb fucking niggers beware! I will educate you by pointing you towards dictionary.com. I am looking out for you crazy negroes. Now, follow the link and learn something. If you're good tonight I may bring home some watermelon and fried chicken.

Altruism.

Obviously, speed limits, domestic abuse laws, and safety codes are all wrong.

None of those require a police state.

We should let people sort out the speed limit among themselves, keep familiy business within families, and just trust in capitalism's free hand to ferret out unsafe building practices...

Hello happy socialist, you might try reading that line again. It did not say "if you need a policeman" or "if you need the police". It was referring to a "police state", which is just a wee bit different.

I think the better application of your quote would be "If you need a police state to enforce your laws, then YOU are wrong."

Oh now, lines like that should require a preface of, "In Soviet Russia...".

A more apropos phrasing...

"Any law that requires the good will of law enforcement to be enacted fairly is by it's very nature bad law. The only guarantee is that it will be abused eventually."

I prefer to fly on the autogiro to the aerodrome, myself.

I prefer to fly on the autogiro to the aerodrome, myself.

why exactly is copying bad?

because it is illegal?
because the music industry makes less money?
because we won't have as nice music if the music industry struggles?
because someone is making money doing things that are illegal?

I have come to the point in my life where (right and wrong) and (legal
and illegal) are now completely separate, and surprisingly, not even
aligned completely.

Please see this +1 Informative website before moderating.

tip: it's Atheist

YOU FAIL IT!

Last as in:
"3. Just past; most recent: last year; the last time I checked."

Not:
"1. Being, coming, or placed after all others; final: the last game of the season."

dictionary.com

I appreciate the sincerity of your views. You may also be right.

What I have disliked about creationism is its claim to being scientific when it has but one view of the possible truth, and only looks for evidence to support that presupposed truth. Unlike proposing a theory, the investigator asserts that if experimentation does not prove the assumption, then the experiment is flawed. This is closed-mindedness incompatible with science.

By contrast, "white holes" and whatever else might support creationism, would be part of the scientific discourse. This is far better than the argument that the mere possibility of a flaw in a theory means that all views are of equal value. It is really a question of probabilities, and the current estimates of the age of the earth, using different approaches, and considered to be very, very probable.

The strictly hypothetical white holes -- proposed but unproven to even the satisfaction of their proponents -- will of course require theory or evidence. Most all of the arguments I have heard for 6,000-year creationism (the "young earth" subset) amount to negative "You don't know for sure" or "There seems to be an inconsistency here" rather than positive proof of a mechanism for such a radical alternative model. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it hasn't been done, and the faith of its proponents, however sincere, can not carry weight with the rest of us.

As someone who has spent much of his life reading, I also find untenable the view that there is one literal view of the Bible. I don't see, for example, any way of proving that the "six days" was six literal days (notice "literal day" means something quite different from "literal reading" -- does this mean there is no literal meaning of literal?) as we know them, and not a part of the metaphors and poetry so prevalent in the Bible. Indeed, I challenge anyone to prove that only one interpretation of any text is possible (if I tell you to "stop," do I mean stop what you are doing? to stop talking? to stop what someone else is doing? to hand me something to hold the door open? or hand me a part for my flute?). Maybe some readings are more faithful than others, but one sole literal one? There is a big gap between stating such an interpretation and proving it. The label "literal" is to me an attempt to squelch debate, like claiming to be a patriot in a political debate.

Dr. Humphreys presents an example of the indeterminacy of literalism. If you look closely at what he's saying, he is trying very hard to extract the "right" interpretation of individual words in the rather terse Genesis story that might comport with theories or future theories of physics. This is all the more tricky because the original words were not in English, are quite ancient, and lack precise translation. So he is interpreting, as he must -- but game over for literalism. Maybe he has it backwards and should determine what the words mean by looking to the natural phenomena that the words describe rather than insisting the "six days" is precise and the rest merely needs to be interpreted to suit it. Why are some words literal and others not?

If Dr. Humphreys can pull it off and dethrone the most brilliant physicists of the last hundred years, more power to him. It will be an enormous contribution to mankind, and a boon to "young earth" creationists. But it is much much much too soon to declare such a revolution.

I am not trying to answer any of these questions, and I am not addressing the infalliability or existence of God; rather harping on the oft-proven falliability of humans to get the message right. I'll bet even creationists misunderstand or disagree with one another from time to time, or there wouldn't be so much discussion among them of what Genesis means. And how has the understanding of Bible changed in the past, and how will it change in the future? If falliability infects science, why does it not infect the "literal" reading of the Bible? Humans are flawed and have imperfect knowledge, so any scientist who tells you science can not be wrong -- not ever -- is lying or deluded. Any creationist who says the same...?

But in any event -- I do appreciate your effort to approach the question thoughtfully. Keep an open mind, I'll do the same.

shill

One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

This is a troll, right?

God made the Earth about 6000 years ago so it couldn't have formed in millions of years.

Interesting logic. In other words, "Because CONCLUSION, then QUESTION must lead to CONCLUSION." I believe this is called a syllogism.

I don't care if oil forms in ten minutes, the Earth is not 6,000 years old to a 99.9% level of certainty unless God has a very odd sense of humor (possible). Personally I'm leaning towards 4.5 billion years.

Seriously, in defense of Christianity, and I am agnostic, scant few Christians subscribe to creationism or intelligent design, so whatever you may believe be careful not to stereotype Christians based on it.

All of the above have problems though for any DJ who plays house, pop, any form of techno/dnb/IDM/trance etc. I'd say my experience here in Toronto is that a small minority of DJ's use CD decks like the pioneer CDJ-1000. Those who do complain about their inability to get new records. You have to understand that in dance music most remixes come on vinyl and the underground releases "white labels" which often contain tracks with uncleared samples or bootleg remixes. The sorta stuff trendy clubbers and raves go nuts for.

Absolutely 0 (zero) scratch artists use digital machines. Their haptic interfaces aren't nearly as robust as vinyl. The basis of urban/electronic music is sampling. The catalog of vinyl records out there is huge and most of all they're cheap! To this day most hip-hop is produce like so: Sample a record into an Akai MPC, re-arrange and have an MC rap on top of it. Sure you could get your hot James Brown beat on a CD in some greatest hits or remastered disc but this is music from the ghetto. "Real" hip-hoppers are poor and even when they make their millions and are dripping with ice and fat chains they still use records. Vinyl is cultural. All of these new digital products definitely have their creative niches though. Ming & Fs use CDJ-1000's exclusively so they don't have to get acetate pressings of their records while they do extensive touring. Lots of people use traktor and final scratch to play their own new material that they aren't yet ready to commit to a a short run of records.

I guess my point is that even though CD/MP3/OGG/Whatever units are more economically and technologically advanced vinyl is cultural. An analogy would be between a string section in an orchestra and some of the more advanced MIDI keyboards we have today. To the untrained ear a synthesized string pad sounds the same as a performed one. But classical music is an instituition. There are professionals who've trained for decades to play their instruments. Telling them to replace their Strad with a Korg Trinton keyboard would be laughable. DJ's are no different, scratching and mixing is no less challenging. I have the unique position of being both a classical viola player AND somebody who likes to play a few records. I dunno what DJ Scene you're from but here in Toronto which is home of a very vibrant urban/electronic/dance music scene a large majority of DJs use vinyl.

(sole if you want to put it in one word, even though I do not belive in the sole idea).

I believe "manufacture" is typically interpreted to mean producing something with the intent of selling it.

In our common law system, the "typical definition" is not always the correct one. It depends upon how a previous court interpreted the meaning of that word. If you can find a case that defines the manufacturing process as one requiring intent to sell, then you have "a case," otherwise it is wild speculation and we all know where that ends up. :)

(see gauging vs. gouging)

(see gauging vs. gouging)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=normative ly

<storage, communications> A computed value which depends on the contents of a block of data and which is transmitted or stored along with the data in order to detect corruption of the data. The receiving system recomputes the checksum based upon the received data and compares this value with the one sent with the data. If the two values are the same, the receiver has some confidence that the data was received correctly.

The checksum may be 8 bits (modulo 256 sum), 16, 32, or some other size. It is computed by summing the bytes or words of the data block ignoring overflow. The checksum may be negated so that the total of the data words plus the checksum is zero.

Internet packets use a 32-bit checksum.

It's a semi-obscure synonym for "a throwback". According to this link, it appears to have a couple other meanings. News to me.

Back to bed. *sigh*

Seriously, I am not criticizing anyone specific here, but when you misspell common words, it takes a lot of credibility away from your thoughts.

It takes away credibility in some peoples minds, in other's it doesn't. 99% of the time I don't even notice typographical errors in peoples writing. I wish slashdot allowed me to automatically mod down the poor spellers by a point or two.

I wish I could mod you down by a point or two, but it looks like someone's already beat me to it.

A system to correct them before they post incorrect spellings would be better.

Yeah, we wouldn't want anyone talking about new ideas or concepts like 'hydrino' or anything. Better change it to 'hydrant' on the fly, or maybe trigger the lameness filter! Everyone loves that! The lameness filter never stops anyone from talking about anything interesting. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

-attribution uncertain, sometimes given as Mark Twain



Yes, but also 'sometimes attributed to Mark Twain' the quote "Never trust a man who only knows how to spell a word one way" as well, so perhaps it would be rather foolish of you to go around misattributing quotes to MT in your anti-miss-spelling crusade. I probably missed a word somewhere in this post, and that means the trolls will eat me alive. I had a good run I guess.

Ah, ever the brilliant prognosticator. You're right. You misspelled 'digusting' which should be 'disgusting' (or did you perhaps mean degusting?).

now, normally I wouldn't hold that against you, but I do believe that the standards set for others should be applied to self, and thus I suppose you have "removed all doubt" that you are, in fact, an idiot.

payed is a perfectly cromulent word.