Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Antennae, Play, Book Larnin'
Out of warranty since day two -- More-than-ordinary Airport investigator Constantin von Wentzel, fearing that "readers will learn about the vagaries of Apple RAM instead of how to fix base stations," writes: "Cliff posted a article by Peter Deweese detailing how his Apple Airport failed. Unfortunately, these failures are next to certain since the power supply inside the Base Station will fry two components by two different means. One is heat, the other the switching power supply. Apple Base Station owners are well aware of the heat issue (the underside can get hot enough to bubble off the sticker)and the two capacitors inside the base station are rated for 1,000 hours @ 105 deg C - about 50 days. The other mode of failure is the power supply itself which switches at a high frequency and subjects the capacitors to high current loads. I investigated my ABS when it failed, and discovered two fried capacitors. It is true that the ABS will run as a DHCP router, etc. when the power supply has failed as long as the WaveLAN card has been removed. The question is how long. I put together a online guide to repair Apple Base Stations as well as how to retrofit external antennas. Both can be found at [this URL]."
Of course, I still like playing Earthball. In reference to the recent quest for non-zero sum games, stuq writes: " 35-40 years ago Buckminster Fuller created the 'World Game' -- the mother of all non-zero sum games. World Game is now under the excellent stewardship of Medard Gable and his World Game Institute.
The original game was played on a version of Fuller's Dymaxion map of the earth that covered an entire gym floor. They now have a satellite imagery version of the map!
There are 100 players, each representing 1% of humanity. Players are assigned
positions on the map in proportion to actual population density (which is
an eye opener -- half of India had to stand in the ocean). Everyone is apportioned:
energy, food, tech credits, etc. in a way that represents the actual distribution
of those rescoures. Additional players around the edge of the map represent
NGO's, Mother Nature, the world press, etc.
The goal is to make the world work for everyone. Utter chaos ensues
and the game play is totally exhilarating. The World Game Institute has taken
the large version of the game to players around the world including many
world leaders.
There is a
net version of the game. Looks like these people haven't been clued in to open source, but I'd bet
they would be interested."
Letters -- they're made out of letters! billn writes: "Long and short, member of a StarCraft clan was dealt a search warrant and is under investigation for 'tampering.' This is not a free speech suppression case. It's not a hate case. The followup is posted here. I did a lot of the research work myself, including a couple phone interviews. I'd just like to say, to all the people who flew off the handle without checking the facts first (including those of you who called Kent State to rant), LEARN TO READ.
For those who care, we'll be following the story to closure."
This after the recent story Cops Bust Starcraft Clan.
Have you got a license for this thing, sir? Olivier Lejade, CEO and co-founder of Nevrax wrote to say that he's posted a response to the recent mention of Nevrax's GPL-client/GPL-server game platform. More information is always good to have, thanks Olivier.
For example: In the halls at my U (UW-Eau Claire), a first underage drinking incident is handled internally -- the hall director would assign some set fine, but the cops would not be called. Any time someone was suspected of smoking pot, on the other hand, the cops would be called immediately. You know, 'cause one form of illegal drug use is less serious than the other, being that one is a socially accepted drug and all.
Anyhow, remember: Most people who run residence halls do so either because they have no career prospects or because they can't bear the thought of moving on from college life (or, often, a combination of these two). Expecting intelligent action is expecting too much.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
There's some misinterpretation in the Kent Stater pieces, and I feel some of the facts cited by the sources I spoke with are also erroneous and overstated. 60 to 70 hours to fix some web content? Uploaded content 'alter configurations'? Getting details about what happened on the server was like pulling teeth. Being an engineering type, it was all I could do not to really get into it with Dave Futey, the ResNet admin of the server in question, knowing what I do about the systems and mechanics involved.
All in all, I think police involvement could have been avoided, and this has largely come down to the wrong people making decisions without understanding the information presented.
- billn
Damn, man, I've never felt that way about wealth. My boss is well-off, and that money is paying the salary of everyone I work with. That money is paying for my house, my car, and everything I buy. That money is paying the wages of the folks at the corner market, the farmers who grow the food, the barber who cuts my hair. Nobody is cutting anybody's throat for anything. Your rhetoric is unneccesarily harsh, and hides your point.
-- Jeff Paulsen
You are trolling, but I'm hooked. The 'zero-sum-ness' of a game is not determined by consensus, sharing, or community. The positive-sum-ness of capitalist thinking might be related by the idea that if I have two blenders, and you have two icemakers, we can trade one blender for one icemaker, and now we can both make pina colada. Nobody lost. "Money" and "Markets" are simply tools that facilitate this exchange. The most efficient markets are those that are kept carefully isolated from manipulation by anyone. The conservative lassaiz-faire concept is the idea that government manipulation of markets is what prevents everyone from trading with near-perfect efficiency, keeping some people from making pina colada. I would go a bit further, and say that corporate and private interference in markets is just as bad for you and I. That is why insider trading needs to be restricted, among other things.
Wealth is not energy, and is easily created and destroyed. If I take fruit, flour, and other ingredients, and make a pie, I can sell that pie for more than the cost of my ingredients. The difference between what I paid for the ingredients and what I get for the finished pie is, roughly, the value of the time I spent making it. If you and I both make pies and sell them, but your pie is better and you sell it for more, where did that value come from? What if we make our pies, and nobody is hungry, so we can't sell them? Where did that value go?
You should learn sufficient economics to understand that there are trades that are advantageous to both sides. Nobody is ripping anybody off in these - it's just that value is relative.
And people who say things like this are trolls..
-- Jeff Paulsen
Possibly. They run NT as a supposedly "non-accessible" web server. Hell, one of "other faculty", notice no mention of whether the "other faculty" had any qualifications to deal with this other than breathing, could have logged into their PC and gone wandering through their Network Neighborhood to look at files on the server. They may have just happened onto the Temporary Internet Files on the server. We all know what happens next.
True sidenote: I had a manager frantic because he did just this, found someones Temporary Internet Files with pr0n in them. Was a bit abashed when I pointed out the truth to him.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Yeah, that's what it is. Everyone wants to eliminate competition in the world. Your sociological acumen has once again seen through the great liberal conspiracy and found the truth.
F'in trolls...
--
A member of a StarCraft clan was dealt a search warrant and is under investigation for 'tampering.' This is not a free speech suppression case. It's not a hate case.
Sounds a bit naive, no? Do you expect that if someone in this country is trying to suppress speech with the aid of police force, that they charge you with "undesirable expression of speech"?
But regardless of whether this case involves the First Amendment or not, this and many, many other stories leave the same questions open. Did the incident require the involvement of police? Did it require confiscation of equipment -- even equipment that has nothing to do with the network -- and the "related articles" (in billn's story), whatever those were?
Apparently not, because the actions they were initially going to take involved just a meeting with their RD and someone from ResNet or the academic IT. Something tells me that in the process of planning this meeting, someone in IT or ResLife called Campus Security to ask a quick question, and Campus Security decided to bust it open and take over. (Note that they haven't even let IT look at the box, and I really doubt that campus security has better computer experts than IT.) Apparently busting "hackers" makes college rentacops (remember, these departments are usually staffed with people who couldnt even get jobs as transit cops) look good.
I had my own share of geek-profiling in college, so I can't say that the bias isn't there. I hear even at MIT they are cracking down on undesired expression and other innocent tomfoolery by their brightest.
And I also know that what holds for the people who work for college police also holds for those who work for college IT: they tend to suck at it. I wouldn't be surprised if they left a no-password login as the default on their main server; hell, at my college, plenty of administrators' desktops were wide open on the campus network -- as in 'I can mount that drive, and if i hit delete, it will work.' (Hmm -- so thats how much the new building is going to cost!) And in my last job, we routinely got reports of 'hacking attempts' because someone running a jumpy network filter would catch someone pinging them.
As for BfD, one wonders why the hell they would want to post their own clan site on a server theyre not supposed to have access to. I dont suppose that the campus cops have thought about that -- at this point, with this press, they need to bring this guy 'down' to look good, regardless of how much it fscks this kid over.
I can't get the Stater's story (site is down?) so I can't argue the merits of the offical version (undoubtedly written by a green journalism student with an AOL-based knowledge of computers, if that). But billn, for his assurance that he knows the true motives behind this blip in the campus police log, doesn't have much to say about any of this in his rebuttal. It reads objectively enough, but to assume that what the campus cops say (or even what academic IT says) is necessarily the truth is an icy footing.
-- Keith "I used to be a journalism student too, but then i wised up" Tyler
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
How can Slashdot have missed this one?
On the Worldgame site under "Suggested New Worldometers" is how many Windows Operating System Crashes have occurred so far this year!
(No, I don't hate Windows, this is just seriously funny.)
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Second: who became poor? If this lump of gold was found in North America, probably some American Indian nation. Always remember that the state creates mineral rights, and other similar property rights, by force.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
...or because they get their room free...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
In fact, you are not asserting a right to life in your argument, but a right not to be killed. For example, if you were subject to an act of nature (let's say getting struck by lightning) and thus were hurt to the point that your recovery needed the aid of others, would they have to help you? In your society, they would not.
Correct. If they do not help me then they're probably not very nice people, but I don't believe they should be thrown in prison.
Who, if we take your society to the extreme, would leave you there to die, since, of course, they would receive no compensation for the act of helping you.
I doubt that. Have you ever donated any money or time to charity? If so, why? You certainly aren't compelled to, you do it because you think it's right and it probably makes you feel good. I'm absolutely not saying that it's wrong to help others, only that the choice should be yours and not forced by someone pointing a gun at you.
If we use your definition of right to life, there would be no hospital care except for the wealthy, no care for the elderly
Again, I don't believe this follows. Many charities provide food, shelter, and medical care, and function completely on voluntary donations. In fact, they tend to be more effective than the much more expensive government programs.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Who said there was anything wrong with them?
All your events are belong to us.
I just remembered my biggest problem with this discussion. FINDING A LIFE PARTNER IS NOT A GAME WITH A FINITE END. In order for something to be considered zero-sum or non-zero-sum, there must be an end point. There is no end point in lifetime relationships, and the belief that getting to the stage of marriage or whatever as an end point, is the reason that so many people become disillusioned by the whole thing. Marriage or whatever is not the end point of a game, neither is it the starting point of another game, but a stage in the progress of life. It is the point that you choose to open up and share your life and experiences with another individual who wishes to do the same, and that is certainly NOT zero-sum!
"I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
- Monty Python meets the Matrix
Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, our society bases partnering on physical attractiveness, and as such people who use that as a metric of who they partner (although not the only metric) with are likely making the right choice. In general, whatever the society deems "attractive," be it thinness or largeness, or money, or stature, the partnering process will typically result in long term good matches and short term bad matches. Thus, it is a postive sum game.
-no broken link
Think of 100 people. The first finds a parter slightly better suited to them than the average. The next then does the same, etc, etc. It is cetainly possible (and in reality likely) that the total happiness is higher than if no one evey matched up.
This is the same principle that shows that trade is positive sum. You have M&Ms, I have gummi bears. We trade half for half, and because of the law of diminishing returns, we come out of the trade with more enjoyment. Partnering is supposed to com out of the trade with more enjoyment. When you consider the whole system, it's still positive sum, because some people are incompatible while others are a good fit (this would be more like me having M&Ms and you having gummis and neither of us like what we have but like the others. We trade our candy, or partners, and we are more happy for it).
-no broken link
Holy crap! I remember playing the world game back in middle school. It's like I totally forgot about that until the article reminded me of it. Even though it's designed to me a zero-sum game, placing a bunch of middle school kids in the game is just asking for trouble. During the game, each country/region had a certain number of objects representing resources (play money, candles for energy, plastic fruits for food, etc). Even in the spirit of learning and all, I remember our team sending certain kids out to steal the other team's candles and fruits. I also remember bribing the media team for extra coverage of our country. Guess it just goes to show that even though the game was meant to be zero-sum where no one wins, the group's natural insticts were to steal and dominate the world.
Nonesense. This is almost exactly backwards. The theory of redistribution of wealth is that given that money has diminishing marginal utility, you can increase total utility by taking something away from the richest people and giving it to the poorest. Imagine, for instance, that person A has $1 billion and four others are flat broke. If you take $4 million from A and give $1 million each to the other four, A will hardly even notice that it's gone, but the people who receive the money will be much, much better off. That's positive sum.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The most convincing arguments that we live in a positive-sum world are to be found in technological progress
Economically speaking, technological progress is not a good example -- its the only example we don't live in a zero sum world. Your gold example wasn't just a bad example, it was actually an incorrect example, for exactly the reason outlined above.
I have absolutely no idea what you think you're trying to explain through the nucear holocaust thing, though...
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
Nice abstraction, but in the real world it doesn't work that way. When say that everyone has the right to life, it doesn't mean anything unless somebody enforces that right. That means that your are commanding others to do your bidding: to write and enforce the laws that protect that right. In most societies around the world, that means involuntary taxation, subjection to law, etc. These are all affirmative acts. Your assertion that protecting a right to life is different from protecting a right to food is false.
--
share and enjoy
The only currency will be attention.
Read my comment again. I said the real currency is time, thats also why I put the words rich and poor in quotes.
Material wealth has no effect on the supply of time. There are still only 24 hours in a day.
Or in this case the value of everyone else's gold.
If you want to know who got "poorer" in your example, well it was everyone else who had money in gold/gold interests.
Money is relative, what the real commodity being traded is time. What percent of your time is spent serving others, and what percent is spent having fun? For one person to have extreme material wealth means that lots&lots of people have to spend their time working for that person. (building his houses, cooking his food, penning his FUD, tracking his taxes, piloting his personal jet, etc), whereas he spends his time having fun- or working for himself.
In simple terms: For each "rich" person there must exist a small army of "poor" people.
Place the ideal state, where everyone has their ideal partner at infinity (nirvana). Zero is the state where noone has any partner.
If you choose a partner based upon criteria where the selection you make will cause a certain number of others to be unable to find their ideal mate, you are reducing the sum. (For example if you choose someone who is ideal to you, but you are not ideal to them)
If you choose the ideal partner for yourself and you are your partner's ideal partner, then you are increasing the sum.
Also, if you make yourself a better person, you become more desirable, and could be an ideal mate for more people. This would make the sum go up. Conversely being slovenly would decrease the sum.
(Since completely solving for every person on earth would be a travelling salesman class problem, its fair to call the nirvana state an infinity even with a mere 6 billion people.)
I'm currently a high school student, my current school isn't too bad but my old school went way too far. At one point they considered abolishing the honor roll because the 20-30% of students who didn't make it felt left out. They also decided to do away with tryouts for teams, and instead used a lottery system if more people tried out than they could take. I believe we went from 2nd in our league to last after they implemented this... oh well.
If anyone knows what article I'm talking about that'd be nice, I couldn't find it for the life of me.
Yep, but it wasn't that it was necessary they only work 15-20 hours a week, it was necessary they work at most 15-20 hours a week. Due to the ins-and-outs of hunting/gathering, any more than that and you're expending more energy than you're taking in. Most of that "leisure time" was spent actively doing as little as possible..no energy to spare.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Number of Windows Operating System crashes since January 1st:
27,010,000 and counting
This is something that we should have available for download or link up or something.
what a hoot!
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Ever heard the term "GDP growth
Do you understand that GDP growth is a measurement of a self-affirming group? GDP Growth does not relate in a linear manner with 'quality of life'.
"same amount of wealth in existence today as there was 100 years ago"
You are not claiming that the improvement in the standard of living for the last 100 years is a simple product of 'Capitalism'? Capitalism is a mere market construct - it is artificial. It has been chosen. There are other systems. Some have more reasonable long-term prospects for success (read: Communism). I would suggest it is Science, Culture and Knowledge. Humanity has the good fortune of experiencing a massive growth in the three afore mentioned facets of culture - the same would have happened if 'we' were not ruthless corporate whores... there is no proof of the two being absolutely related. I would guess that Americans perceive there present 'power' as a testament to the 'rightchiousness' of Capitalism, that it is the 'best system - just look at how terrific we are'.
I would counter that America has the good fortune of being living on a previously un-exploited landmass and never having to fight a modern domestic war. Dont be so sure of the ultimate 'success' of Corporatist Capitalism. America may be the 'wealthiest' nation - but it also enjoys *ALOT* of major social problems: Puritanism, Intolerance, Religious Zealotry, Legislated Morals, Crime, Cultural Myopia, Racism, Corruption, Consumerism and Apathy. These things are a result of individuals being convinced of their self-importance, and their greed being encouraged. This aids in maintaining the all justifying 'profit motive'. Dont confuse random good fortune with destiny - and dont let propaganda and public hysteria confuse your judgement. Look outside your borders and realize that the reason the rest of the world hates Americans is there hubris and lack of perspective... just what your post displays.
Oh and btw: GPD Growth != Success.
Note: If you happen to not be American, your opinions exemplify one.
s/socialism/capitalism/
Yes - thanks for the clarity.
these must be provided by the labor of others
these must be provided by the labor of others & Socialists believe in forcibly taking the fruits of other people's labor
both of these are basically untrue - socialists arent 'lazy'. Looking for a 'free ride'. Dont be so paranoid. The basic idea is that Class Structures are inherently flawed: It is not necessary for people to work 'against' on another. *WE* would all be better off to co-operate. Organizing our economy around the idea that people are all entitled to basic needs, and working together to assure them is a worthier collective goal. We do have a choice, we can purposely organize a system to exploit and exclude people or we can try and provide more - for all.
This is what I am advocating. Uncontrolled, rabid capitalism will not lead to a 'better world'. It may be a method to aid a few (bourgeoisie) to live much better than virtually everyone else (proletariat) - but it is not the kind of 'worthy goal' we should be aligning ourselves with.
The world is not a cold, dark, uncaring place unless we succumb to cynicism.
BTW: RIAA==MPAA==BigThreeAuto==WIPO==WTO==Bourgeoisie
Capitalists believe in accumulating wealth through the voluntary exchange of goods and services(*).
Quite possibly, but the essential part is that the 'capital' they gain is *private*. Capitalism is the antithesis of sharing. Therefore, all capitalists are depriving others of their wealth, ie the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
You'll also find that hard-working capitalist corporations prefer to obtain unskilled and semi-skilled labour at as low a cost as possible. This is good, because a reduction in costs can increase profits, market share, etc. However, it does go directly against democratic governments, who have the unfortunate task of providing at least a minimum socialist agenda, ie employment laws and minimum wages, because its capital is 'votes', and happy people make good voters.
The 'free market' has winners and losers, but I don't think that people would choose to be born if they were forced to live their existance purely based on a ruthlessly capitalistic 'free market'. It's a non-natural invention, supported by the individuals who benefit from it the most. Evolution doesn't benefit individuals, only the collective.
Does my bum look big in this?
No, instead you need a slave in Malaysia to build you air conditioner. You no longer need a courier, you need a copper mine, probably in Africa, semiconductor plans, probably in Taiwan, and container ships, probabyl 30+ years old and registered in Liberia or Morrocco and stocked with a crew of workers who may or may not be paid enough to cover their food expenses when they land in port to unload the stuff. People seem to assume that advances in technology make things more efficient. Frankly, I'm wondering if they don't transfer the burden to the rest of the world. It is now belived that 30,000 years ago, it was neccessary for only the adult members of society to work only 15-20 hours a week for all survival functions--I'm not suggesting we go back, but it certainly makes you wonder...
/* This post not warrantied for mission critical applications. */
Finding a partner is only a "zero-sum" game if you assume every person has the same standards and the same criteria. For example, that computer model that used "attractiveness" levels had everyone value attractiveness and had everyone use the same criteria for valuing attractiveness.
However, that is absolutely not the case . As Jared Diamond mentions in "The Third Chimpanzee", studies have shown that among studied animals and humans, the object of desire is someone who resembles a person you were raised by/with but not someone you were actually raised by/with. In humans, that set of characteristics include belief systems (religious, political, etc.)
The result is that my ideal is highly unlikely to be ideal or even highly valued by someone raised by a tall, thin, dark-haired, religious Eastern Orthodox Russian-American Democrat with perfect vision.
The problem with zero-sum games is that they do not accurately reflect how market economies or personal relationships work. But this is not a cry to eliminate competition; obviously competition is an element of the non-zero-sum "games" of market economies and personal relationships. But a game where player 1 comes out 100% ahead of where he started and player 2 comes out only 50% ahead has both competition and isn't zero-sum.
There's no "we" in team, only "me"
SubtleNuance is a truly ironic name for someone with such a shallow grasp of reasoning. You are quite right about energy. You couldn't be more wrong with your analogy between energy and wealth. Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is the same amount of wealth in existence today as there was 100 years ago? Nobody with a basic grasp of history and some empathy skills would. Ever heard the term "GDP growth"? Ever wondered what it means?
"moo" - cow 3, 1906
Think of 100 people. The first finds a parter slightly better suited to them than the average. The next then does the same, etc, etc. It is cetainly possible (and in reality likely) that the total happiness is higher than if no one evey matched up.
In an ideal world maybe. But one thing I read recently was a statistical study of the effects of societal ideals for attractiveness on whether or not people end up with partners they are suited for. And what was found was that when a society has a high ideal for attractiveness (as we do given the media's fascination with "beautiful" people) more people ended up with people that were less than averagely suited to each other.
So in that sense, the sum is negative, because most people don't end up with someone better suited to them than the average.
If you choose a partner based upon criteria where the selection you make will cause a certain number of others to be unable to find their ideal mate, you are reducing the sum. (For example if you choose someone who is ideal to you, but you are not ideal to them)
But you aren't just either not suited or ideal, there's a spectrum of appeal between the two... So by taking your "ideal" partner, you could be denying another thousand people the chance for a "75% ideal" partner... And if there is also a "90% ideal partner" for you but only a "5% ideal" partner for them, then only by taking the 90% ideal partner and giving your ideal partner to them do we benefit as a whole...
Maybe you've been at the feminism or something for too long... :)
Last time I checked, sex ratios were fairly balanced. That means that there really can be someone for everyone.
Yes, but how well matched will these people be for each other? Even if there was an "ideal" person for everybody, and even if they matched, how many of these would find each other and then get together? Not that many I'd assume, not with 250 million people in the US alone.
As far as "denying your partner to everyone else," did it ever occur to you that your partner is a person and not a commodity? They choose to stay with you - you don't own them.
See, you're misinterpreted what I said again. For some reason you seem to think that I am physically restraining my partner from being with other people as well. One would hope that if they are with you they do not want to be with anyone else. If they did, then they shouldn't be with you, and probably won't be after a while either.
As for experiance with relationships? Well, not that it's any of your business, but I'm perfectly happy with my wife of six years thank you. But nice try missy.
Not positive sum eh? No wonder you're failing at it.
Well no, it's not. If you find yourself a partner then you have denied that partner to everyone else (assuming fidelity of course). You win, they lose, hence it is a zero-sum situation. Of course if you're polyamorous it's different and you can have a postive-sum situation since by having someone you aren't denying them to anyone else...
Oh and thanks for the ad hominem attack. Very big of you.
Yeah, that's what it is. Everyone wants to eliminate competition in the world.
Strawman. I never claimed everyone wanted to, just that some do. Take a look at the decline in competitive sports in schools in the UK for instance. And there are groups who agree with this position here in the US. Of course as long as football brings in as much money for colleges as it does here, competitive sports are hear to stay along with things like sports scholarships and other such BS.
F'in trolls...
Oooh, I'm hurt. An opinion you don't like! Quick, must be a troll!
Now if only he knew how to fix the LaGuardia Airport (in New York). Then we'd really be saved!
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Personally, when I read the phrase "Kent State Starcraft" I assumed that somebody with rather poor taste created a mod that replaced the existing sides with National Guardsmen and students...
s/socialism/capitalism/ for this post to make any sense.
Are all men born with the same inherent rights to food, shelter, clothing and as comfortable an existence as possible? Yes.
No. This is the fundamental difference between capitalists and socialists. I don't believe that anything requiring an affirmative act by another person can be a right. When I assert that I have the right to life, that means you shouldn't be able to kill me but leaves you otherwise free to conduct yourself. When you assert that you have the right to food, shelter, and clothing, these must be provided by the labor of others, so you am asserting that you should be able to command others to do your bidding. What were you saying about not being more important than anyone else?
Your 'real world' dogma is a defense to justify your own greed
Capitalists believe in accumulating wealth through the voluntary exchange of goods and services(*). Socialists believe in forcibly taking the fruits of other people's labor because they believe they need it more. I'm having a hard time figuring out how "greed" applies to the first and not the second.
(*)Note that this does not include entities such as the RIAA, who prefer to accumulate wealth by bribing lawmakers to pass anti-consumer laws.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
And you're correct, but only if you stop the analysis there. In reality, A will quickly notice that anytime he has earned more than his "fair share" of wealth, it is confiscated and given to those who have less. Why then should he continue to produce wealth? Why wouldn't he just sit back and get his share of the money confiscated from E (until E figures the game out and stops working too)? I suppose your answer could be "if he thinks like that then he's an evil selfish bastard", and while that may or may not be true, it doesn't solve the problem.
Of course both the original example and my reply are overly simplified, but the point is that analysis of wealth redistribution has to take into account the longer term effects of the redistribution policies themselves.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Well, had you used this Google search you might have found a number of pages that mention it however briefly, like this one. Some of them even have pictures.
And the brethren went away edified.
99% of the web site hacks on WinNT are becuase some administrator (or desktop-support-person-forced-to-run-the-server) gave anonymous users write access to the website through Frontpage extensions. It's the equivalent of giving 'nobody' write/put permissions on your Apache site. Univeristy departments are probably the worst at this too, so it's no suprise that someone who's "idea of shutting down his computer is kicking it until the light goes off" could upload some webpages.
ÕÕ
Strangely enough, none of his comments were moderated above a score of 1.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Any non-zero-sum game will eventually evolve into a zero-sum game. I say this as a veteran of countless muds and cooperative games of starcraft. My rationale is that in any universe containing finite "resources" and no limits on the player's actions, players will eventually consume enough of the resources (be they vespian gas or +1 daggers) such that things will eventually result in either competition to take resources quicker or fighting to take resources that have already been claimed.
Every game Ive played that didnt take drastic measures to prevent players from competing with one another always had players competing with one another. Any game that did an effective job of preventing this competition was quickly abandoned as boring.
Games that completely prevent competition between players arent games anymore... theyre called *drum roll* chat rooms! Or mucks or whatever.
Anyway, competition is fun, right? What better reason to get up in the morning?
However, I don't see the bubbling in the label that was in that link.
I did intend to mount the antenna on the wall at one point, but never did it. The wall bracket is still on, though, and it serves to elevate the base station off of the shelf that it's on, which is probably good for ventilation.
Moral of the story: Put that bracket on, even if you're not intending to mount it. Not only could it make your unit run cooler, but it gives it that kind of floating-UFO action.
The best example of a non-zero sum game is life itself. Most left wing theory is built upon the presumption that life is a zero sum game (when people start talking about "redistribution of wealth" you know they are a bit nuts). People often mistakenly assume that someone's gain is necessarily someone else's loss.
"moo" - cow 3, 1906
Yea, I know that whole 1970s thing was the National Guard getting just a tisch trigger happy. But the Kent State UPD just bought freaking M16s
Supposedly, they're being modified to semi-automatic. Still, what the hell does a UPD need M16s for? If it's that bad, call in the city police or sherrifs for help. Or even the National Guard if you have a riot on your hands.... oh wait... that happened already. My bad.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Is there something wrong with the idea of competition and having someone win and others lose? After all many of the challenges people face in their lives will be zero-sum ones - either you win or you lose, and not everyone can come out ahead. Finding a partner is not a positive-sum game for instance, and that's about the most important thing there is.
There does seem to be certain people that seem to think that competition is bad, and that it is somehow "unfair" to those that aren't as good. Peronally, I think it's unfair to cosset these people and make them believe that things are going to be easy when they hit the outside world.
At least losing in school will prepare them for losing outside of it. Harsh, yes, but better sooner rather than later.
Still, the game sounds interesting and I may have to have a go. Hopefully managing the world's resources won't turn out to be a zero sum game, even though America seems to think it is, and if they don't actively try and scupper all attempts to curb our excesses we will somehow "lose".
Oohkay. So, there's no real evidence that a crime has been committed (maybe someone logged onto the server, fired up IE, and the pages ended up in the cache), but the judge is quick to hand out a search warrant and the police have the right to hold the kid's computer for up to a year.
So, if I were to find a beer can in a dorm trash can, would the judge grant a search warrant to confiscate the dorm fridge of every resident (despite the fact that some residents might be overage, or that a visitor might have desposited it, or whatever)? After all, a crime might have been committed.
In my opinion, this case was never important for any free speech implications: It's the unreasonable search and seizure you should be concerned with. Even in a case where it the police don't know a crime has even been committed, they can easily obtain a warrant to suspect a suspect's civil liberties.
If the government tries to regulate guns, special interests swing into action. If the government tries to stop someone from saying anything, Slashdot goes nuts. Why isn't this just as bad, if not worse?
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Had the airport been intact Apple would have presumably replaced it (it's not cost-effective to repair them) free of charge under the one year warranty.
Unfortunately due to (reportedly) poor electrical design the device's lifetime appears to be only slightly greater then one year. How convenient for Apple. I'd always suspected this of my kitchen appliances but generally Apple's equipment (except for their old 9" monitors & Mac SE power supplies) has been notably high quality.
Electrical/design defects aside the Apple Airports really are a fabulous bit of engineering. For a few hundred bucks they act as a really nifty DHCP/NAT server. One doesn't even need a Mac to configure these suckers as their OS manufacturer has a Java one out. Surreally enough the AirPorts are x86-based, which is strange considering the strength of PPC in embedded devices.
In somewhat related new the Orinoco/WaveLAN 802.11 cards have now dropped in price to ~US$150 for Silver, ~US$170 for Gold (128 bit encryption.) Furthermore reports are out that the next generation of these devices will shrink down to two or so discrete chips meaning even smaller/more efficient devices.
Now if only more manufacturers would start embedding antennas in their devices.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Well, I'm glad to see that the police did at least go in for some reason that wasn't just 'we don't like the page'. It's really sad though, that it's gotten to the point that many of us feel that we have to be that paranoid with regard to laws and law enforcement, and that it seems that much of law enforcement is very behind as far as technical knowledge goes. I'm still wondering why it wasn't handled internally though. At my university, if a student is suspected of breaking the rules of the school with regard to the network, his physical feed is unplugged from the other end. (Ironically, they aren't usually smart enough to cut access by IP, so the student simply has to find another outlet, but oh bloody well.) The thing is that they don't usually need to call the police in, and I'm not aware of any instances where that was necessary.
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...