My parents got a 7 cents/min 800 number, so I could call them any time, anywhere-including campus. since I don't make any other long distance calls, that works out great -except dad is always complaining that I call too much...
Sounds great, but wouldn't that learning process lead to the possibillity of bugs, based on incorrect optimizations the compiler had learned? How would you get the compiler to generate proofs that show that its optimizations will be guaranteed to work? Further, what about human errors in coding? Wouldn't human errors in code make it possible that the compiler learns really bad optimization methods? Just some random thoughts....
YOU ARE _SO_ COMPLETELY RIGHT! Too many people do indeed take freedom to mean no responsibility. But truth is, Freedom means MORE responsibility (constastingly, totalitarianism(sp) means we have less responsibility)-but you already said all that.
Reduce the noise. Raise the signal. Make a convert.
But considering the topic of conversation, I think it is appropriate here.
This isn't exacltly profound or anything, but isn't the objective here NOT to flame? You do make a good point, this is true. However, better chosen words would have had a better impact, had you stated your opinion, without sarcasm, and hatefulness(?). As it stands, two things have now happened: One, I have replied to your rudeness, rather than your thoughtful, and articulate opinion, and two, you have increased the noise to the point that your thoughts (the signal) cannot be discerned readily.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it true that so many bacteria have mutated into antibiotic resistant strains, because of the carelessnes of people who use them? For example (a nurse explained this one to me), I sick. I go to the doctor. The doctor says "You have alskdjfal-acil. woiaent-oemon will cure you". So I go get woiaent-oemon, and start taking it. 3 days later, my temp is normal, I'm no longer a light shade of green with red x's on my arms, and I can see straight. So I say "Thanks Doc, but you prescribed me too much medicine", and throw away the rest of the 2 week prescription I got. Although I'm feeling better, the bug is still in me, and still alive-just not so numerous anymore, so that I don't notice the effect. And since I've stopped taking the antibiotic, the bug can now start replenishing itself again, and making me sick again. Only this time, the bug is more resistant to woiaent-oemon.... and then I kiss my girlfriend, and she does exactly what I did.... Thus, more resistant strains are formed, by carelessness. The same, I would guess can occur in viruses. So, wouldn't we be less likely aid natural selection, if we just finished the prescription, and made "dang" sure the bug, or virus or whatever was dead? And if so, wouldn't it take considerably longer for the virus to mutate, and thus give us time to find effective ways to irradicate the bugs?
The catch 22 that the publishing industry (recording labels, film industry, book publishers, etc) finds itself in is quite interesting (not to mention a bit funny). If something is distributed, in any format, (from verbal to print to mp3), it is reproducable (granted, some methods of distribution don't lend to reproduction well). If its reproducable, then the publisher/distributor looses money every time a reproduction is made, and distributed that they did make/distribute (aka piracy). When they loose money, they complain that the distribution format is flawed (insecure, not as good as format X, etc), and that they will now use a new distribution format, which is better (and it is). But then the new distribution format is also reproducible, so they start over. The publishers/distributors continue to chase their own tail this way, in an attempt to squeeze 100% of the revenue out of their customers (ie no piracy). yet they cannot do this, becuase its impossible to create a distribution format that cannot be pirated. thus, the tail chase can end if one of two things happen. 1) All distributions become free (If only we were socialists...) 2) All piracy ends. The only way to end piracy, is to distribute in a format which cannont be reproduced, which cannot happen. Thus, the only way to stop piracy is to stop distribution, which takes us back to solution 1. Shall I call you comrade now?
Kinda Makes me wonder. If they're loosening export restrictions, why isn't the NSA complaining? As I understand it, they're one of the big supporters of keeping strong encryption domestic, because they can't crack it very well (or very quickly). If that's so, why aren't they complaining? Think they know something we don't? think they found a way to defeat it?
There! that should be enough paranoia for everyone...
I concur. Your words remind me of one of the most profound statements I've ever heard about freedom: "Your rights end where someone else's rights begin"
Being that I am a christian, I do believe that pornography is wrong, and would not mind seeing it, (as well as murder, prostitution, lying stealing, etc) disapear from the planet forever. However, I would rather that all of those things disappear, because the people involved in them see the truth, and turn from their wrong doing, rather than because Billy Graham overthrows the nations of the earth, and sets up a totalitarian regime in the name of God. (Note: don't flame me because I call my religion truth. Instead mock me if I do not live as though that which I call truth is really the truth.). Besides, last time christiandom tried to run the world, people died....
But as someone else has already said, "it cuts both ways".
Pornography (not to mention every other form of expressions -including my own expression of faith) should contain itself to its appropriate setting. IE do not make pornography available to children, do not wear a white pointy hat in an all black neighborhood, do not use explitives at your grandma's house... -you get the point.
should the government regulate free speech? NO! (else they'd start taxing by the word...) rather, people should take responsibillity for their freedom. The religious sect shouldn't force their views down everyone's throat. Parents should protect their children from harmful things. Pornographic publishers should take responsibility for who can view their material. white pointy hats should be -re-educated....
BTW, I think that pornographic publishers are beginning to go in the right direction, with the development of age check verification systems (Now if only parents would be parents and do their part...)
Slashdot Mirror
My parents got a 7 cents/min 800 number, so I could call them any time, anywhere-including campus. since I don't make any other long distance calls, that works out great -except dad is always complaining that I call too much...
Sounds great, but wouldn't that learning process lead to the possibillity of bugs, based on incorrect optimizations the compiler had learned? How would you get the compiler to generate proofs that show that its optimizations will be guaranteed to work? Further, what about human errors in coding? Wouldn't human errors in code make it possible that the compiler learns really bad optimization methods? Just some random thoughts....
I know its not kosher to do this, but....
YOU ARE _SO_ COMPLETELY RIGHT! Too many people do indeed take freedom to mean no responsibility. But truth is, Freedom means MORE responsibility (constastingly, totalitarianism(sp) means we have less responsibility)-but you already said all that.
Reduce the noise. Raise the signal. Make a convert.
But considering the topic of conversation, I think it is appropriate here.
This isn't exacltly profound or anything, but isn't the objective here NOT to flame? You do make a good point, this is true. However, better chosen words would have had a better impact, had you stated your opinion, without sarcasm, and hatefulness(?). As it stands, two things have now happened: One, I have replied to your rudeness, rather than your thoughtful, and articulate opinion, and two, you have increased the noise to the point that your thoughts (the signal) cannot be discerned readily.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it true that so many bacteria have mutated into antibiotic resistant strains, because of the carelessnes of people who use them? For example (a nurse explained this one to me), I sick. I go to the doctor. The doctor says "You have alskdjfal-acil. woiaent-oemon will cure you". So I go get woiaent-oemon, and start taking it. 3 days later, my temp is normal, I'm no longer a light shade of green with red x's on my arms, and I can see straight. So I say "Thanks Doc, but you prescribed me too much medicine", and throw away the rest of the 2 week prescription I got. Although I'm feeling better, the bug is still in me, and still alive-just not so numerous anymore, so that I don't notice the effect. And since I've stopped taking the antibiotic, the bug can now start replenishing itself again, and making me sick again. Only this time, the bug is more resistant to woiaent-oemon.... and then I kiss my girlfriend, and she does exactly what I did.... Thus, more resistant strains are formed, by carelessness. The same, I would guess can occur in viruses. So, wouldn't we be less likely aid natural selection, if we just finished the prescription, and made "dang" sure the bug, or virus or whatever was dead? And if so, wouldn't it take considerably longer for the virus to mutate, and thus give us time to find effective ways to irradicate the bugs?
The catch 22 that the publishing industry (recording labels, film industry, book publishers, etc) finds itself in is quite interesting (not to mention a bit funny). If something is distributed, in any format, (from verbal to print to mp3), it is reproducable (granted, some methods of distribution don't lend to reproduction well). If its reproducable, then the publisher/distributor looses money every time a reproduction is made, and distributed that they did make/distribute (aka piracy). When they loose money, they complain that the distribution format is flawed (insecure, not as good as format X, etc), and that they will now use a new distribution format, which is better (and it is). But then the new distribution format is also reproducible, so they start over. The publishers/distributors continue to chase their own tail this way, in an attempt to squeeze 100% of the revenue out of their customers (ie no piracy). yet they cannot do this, becuase its impossible to create a distribution format that cannot be pirated. thus, the tail chase can end if one of two things happen. 1) All distributions become free (If only we were socialists...) 2) All piracy ends. The only way to end piracy, is to distribute in a format which cannont be reproduced, which cannot happen. Thus, the only way to stop piracy is to stop distribution, which takes us back to solution 1. Shall I call you comrade now?
Kinda Makes me wonder. If they're loosening export restrictions, why isn't the NSA complaining?
As I understand it, they're one of the big supporters of keeping strong encryption domestic, because they can't crack it very well (or very quickly). If that's so, why aren't they complaining? Think they know something we don't? think they found a way to defeat it?
There! that should be enough paranoia for everyone...
I concur. Your words remind me of one of the most profound statements I've ever heard about freedom: "Your rights end where someone else's rights begin"
Being that I am a christian, I do believe that pornography is wrong, and would not mind seeing it, (as well as murder, prostitution, lying stealing, etc) disapear from the planet forever. However, I would rather that all of those things disappear, because the people involved in them see the truth, and turn from their wrong doing, rather than because Billy Graham overthrows the nations of the earth, and sets up a totalitarian regime in the name of God. (Note: don't flame me because I call my religion truth. Instead mock me if I do not live as though that which I call truth is really the truth.). Besides, last time christiandom tried to run the world, people died....
But as someone else has already said, "it cuts both ways".
Pornography (not to mention every other form of expressions -including my own expression of faith) should contain itself to its appropriate setting. IE do not make pornography available to children, do not wear a white pointy hat in an all black neighborhood, do not use explitives at your grandma's house... -you get the point.
should the government regulate free speech? NO! (else they'd start taxing by the word...) rather, people should take responsibillity for their freedom. The religious sect shouldn't force their views down everyone's throat. Parents should protect their children from harmful things. Pornographic publishers should take responsibility for who can view their material. white pointy hats should be -re-educated....
BTW, I think that pornographic publishers are beginning to go in the right direction, with the development of age check verification systems (Now if only parents would be parents and do their part...)