I did accidentally go to whitehouse.com once, and a few times I've tried to go to a website with an acronym, and fat-fingered the letters and ended up at another acronym which was for hot moms or something.
Most people don't type URLs directly into their browsers that often. I mean, yes, I know what you're saying. But for me, blocking.xxx at work would never, ever cause a problem where I actually needed to view content that somehow was behind.xxx. You also don't often go looking for porn in a Starbucks or McDonalds, do you? No, that's because porn houses do a pretty good job of putting "XXX" or "Adult" or whatever on their establishment. Putting ".xxx" on the end of your domain offers about those same benefits to them. *shrug*
Look, even if half of the porn on the net moves eventually to.xxx, then I can block.xxx from my kid, and I've blocked out half the porn on the net. And if someone wants to go looking for porn, they can go to.xxx sites first. *shrug*
So, we have to have "Parental Advisory - Explicit Lyrics" on CDs, and an MPAA which assigns ratings to movies, and basically the same thing for games - and TV shows! But having a label which everyone can recognize (and gravitate towards or away from as they chose!) is a bad thing?
I don't know if Constitutionally it makes sense, and I guess I don't know for sure if using.xxx would be a way of labeling yourself as "please, Congress make a law forbidding my business," but from a provider-consumer/avoider basis, this sounds almost ideal to me. It's when government interferes that things go sour, I guess. (For the record: I vote liberal/Democrat.)
I mean, the internet is already chock full of graphic porn - wouldn't putting it together in one place (from a TLD point of view) be better than having it all over? For everyone?
I mean, this is kind of like clear labeling on foods of the amount of Sodium, Calories, etc... Isn't it?
That's the powerful discovery that religion constitutes: a way to get the vast majority of a population to behave morally most of the time.
No, religion promulgates the belief that people are inherently bad and full of sin, and without religion, they will behave without morals most of the time.
Good parenting and law constitute a way to get the vast majority of a population to behave morally most of the time.
So, when a religious person (I should say fundamentalist) tries to impact parenting and the law, guess what they do? Try to force people to follow their religious beliefs - in school, if they can get away with it.
I also think it's just about impossible to teach this kind of innate morality (certainly not to those over the age of 10, anyway).
And because many people are too lazy to try to teach their children anything, anymore - we get a national debate about whether religion should be taught in public schools. And with people who think the world is black and white, there's a push for us to cripple children with the belief that everything is right or wrong - for instance, you can't teach abstinance and safe sex, because kids will get confused.
...anyway - I didn't mean to come crashing down on you, but I've often been told that what I believe in cannot be "moral," because I don't believe in Christ as my personal savior. How's that for logic?
I've seen how people distort the Golden Rule: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." Something like this: Well, I'm right - and you're wrong. And if I were you, I'd want you to help me become right - so I'm going to do everything in my power to stop you from having your beliefs.
It's just religious arrogance to believe that morality comes from the god you believe in, and all other behavior - no matter how good it seems - is inherently flawed by not being blessed by god. That's essentially the logical glitch that allowed good Christian sailors to brutalize the heathens they found in the new world... And that goes a pretty good distance towards explaining Christians who now hate all Muslims as a result of 9/11.
This is quite sad. The entire Slashdot crowd is being very unfair, here. He didn't change what he was saying - he said one thing and then did another. That's totally different. He castigated the community about how things should be, but when faced with harsh reality, he broke the law and tried to convince you that the law is not at fault - someone else made him do it. It's not that the law didn't protect him as a consumer of content, it's that the producer of content did a poor job - so now, he had to break the law - but they still shouldn't fix the law.
Yup - I know. But it also happens to work on both compilers I care about. =P
Besides, anyone who thinks an XOR swap is the way to go is either using a ton of data, relative to the size of their platform - or they're an idiot, as you point out ("moronic bitflipping").
Or a humane and workable solution: encourage a culture that does not promote sexual promiscuity.
Sure. Fine. Let's start by doing the most effective, realistic things possible, first. As those prove effective, we can work towards better and better solutions.
Starting by condemning the use of condoms is reprehensible.
Of course I'm thinking of Catholocism - we were talking about the Pope.
As far as I'm aware, there's only one thing that would "fix the problem" of people having HIV - develop an early identification test for HIV, test everyone in the world repeatedly for decades, and kill every single person who tests positive.
Either that or develop a cure or vaccine.
One way is barbaric, the other way is science-fiction right now (unfortunately).
Now that we're back to reality, the smartest thing to do is to be as responsible as possible - and telling people in an AIDS-stricken region that using condoms is a sin is completely irresponsible, to the point where I would like to see people who educate against condom use to be prosecuted for war crimes, for participating in biological warfare.
Yes, it's a problem that myths are perpetuated - but I consider that to be a symptom, not a cause. Real education is needed, to try to change behavior. One simple behavioral change is to use a condom instead of having unprotected sex - by fighting that idea, and not offering a functioning alternative, the Catholic church is killing people.
She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope."
NASA: Okay - how's about this - we spend all the money required to create a new horoscope, which incorporates the changes we made to the "fabric of the universe", and has just as much predictive power as your old horoscope.
Total price: $0.
Studying astronomy instead of astrology: Priceless.
For bullshit predictions based on the position of the planets at the moment of your birth, there's Madame Marina Bai. For everything else there's NASA.
Wow, you certainly wrote a lot. Too bad you didn't read what I wrote.
First, I said that there would be two email systems - the one we currently have, and this new one I'm talking about - so no one is trying to restrict them from being able to send or receive mail.
How do I plan to administer this? You don't think computers can talk to each other? Jeez - what, are you trying to invent problems where none exist?
And finally, I want to point out how it is that I got your reply on Slashdot. I got it as a message that was held for me, by proxy, by a server on your behalf. When I decided that I wanted to check my more trusted email, I logged on to Slashdot, and bam - there it was. What I'm proposing would basically be the same thing as if I had an RSS feed to my Slashdot email, and instead of it being your Slashdot email proxy that I would check, it would be (for instance) your ISP who was holding my email for me on your behalf. That is, if you were someone that I regularly communicated with, and I wanted a slightly better way to ensure that email exchanges with you were slightly more trusted, and also less prone to the lossy nature of our current email system. Take a chill-pill.
Thanks for responding, but geez - you sure had an attitude about it.
And once again, I think public key cryptography is a better approach to guarantee (as much as is possible) the trust relationship - but email is still lossy.
But before you burn me in effigy, consider that the system that I just described is basically an RSS feed on my Slashdot mail.:) Just realized that. I keep checking Slashdot for new articles (or messages), and noticed that Slashdot is acting as my trusted server. I would trust it more, if it were controlled by one of my friends directly... Maybe...:)
Yup. I'm going to once again say that my idea is worse than public key cryptography.
3. I responded to this - the sender sends two emails - one a "I've got an email for you" through normal means, and a "trusted email" is kept on the sender side. *shrug* Public key crypto is still better than my idea.
4. I don't see how I've *harmed* the signal to noise ratio, but I guess I agree that I haven't improved it for people who routinely accept unsolicited email.
Meh. Like all lame ideas, they seem really great to the inventor until the fourth person correctly points out that they were being an idiot. Thanks.:)
As I responded to someone else, public key cryptography probably works better to identify trusted senders, anyway...
...but as my idea stands, it would definitely work for me - I only have a few hundred people that I repeatedly get email from - only a dozen or so that I particularly care about.
*shrug*
Polling them would hardly take any time at all.
Thanks for the response. But I should probably just officially retract my idea from discussion - since public key cryptography does all that I want and more... it's just a question of getting my non-nerd friends to use it.
Specifically the parts that said that we have two types of email, and where I said that 1) we have what we have today.:)
In other words, I'm not proposing a replacement for current email - just an additional system with improved trust.
Maybe two parallel systems is unworkable, but I don't think so.
On the other hand, if you've already established communications with someone, you can just use public key cryptography to verify their emails... So, yeah... My idea is probably pretty pointless.
1) What we've got today - sucks - freakishly low signal to noise ratio
2) Sender Hold Email. I tell my email client the email address of everyone I consider trusted. Largely this is based just on looking at emails that I haven't marked as SPAM. From then on, when I want to read email, my client tries to connect to the address in the sender's email address. My client asks, "Any email for me from this user on your system?"
If you want to imagine the system scaling a bit better, a larger client system representing your domain asks the neighboring domains for emails and sorts them with the same scheme of trust as described above.
The polling rate can be adjusted... Heck, the system can be designed such that the client knows to poll the sender when it receives a notification email through the old system.
Anyway - I officially open this idea to the public domain (assuming it hasn't already been implemented and patented.)
Now comes the part where everyone on Slashdot tells me I'm a moron...
Yes, it's a separate line, but it's the same core. By showcasing the core (even if it's in a separate line), they get the workstation crowd drooling.
The workstation market absolutely is being targeted here by NVidia - since it's the same core.
They're also targeting the enthusiast crowd, maybe two or three years down the line.
They're also targeting the enthusiast with laptop crowd, maybe three or four years down the line.
They're also targeting the average consumer maybe four to six years down the line.
These GPUs have legs - they last for a long, long time. Maybe they get revised some, but the same basic technology, and extremely similar engineering, remains.
1) OF COURSE it's for the prestige. Why do you think car companies make formula-1 race cars - for the consumer market?
2) It teaches them valuable things - they actually reduced the power consumption, this time around.
3) I'm an enthusiast, and I'm strongly considering buying one.
4) You're completely forgetting the workstation market.
5) You're also forgetting developers who need to have development systems to make those games that you'll want to buy when the NEXT product from NVIDIA comes out, and you buy the older boards.
6) And possibly most importantly - this gives you a pretty good idea of what kind of card you're going to have in your computer in two or three years, so you can plan your system around it.
Maybe you can't afford one now, but it's not all about YOU, RIGHT NOW. Think about the future, and other people.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's not exactly what I said.
.xxx at work would never, ever cause a problem where I actually needed to view content that somehow was behind .xxx. You also don't often go looking for porn in a Starbucks or McDonalds, do you? No, that's because porn houses do a pretty good job of putting "XXX" or "Adult" or whatever on their establishment. Putting ".xxx" on the end of your domain offers about those same benefits to them. *shrug*
.xxx, then I can block .xxx from my kid, and I've blocked out half the porn on the net. And if someone wants to go looking for porn, they can go to .xxx sites first. *shrug*
I did accidentally go to whitehouse.com once, and a few times I've tried to go to a website with an acronym, and fat-fingered the letters and ended up at another acronym which was for hot moms or something.
Most people don't type URLs directly into their browsers that often. I mean, yes, I know what you're saying. But for me, blocking
Look, even if half of the porn on the net moves eventually to
So, we have to have "Parental Advisory - Explicit Lyrics" on CDs, and an MPAA which assigns ratings to movies, and basically the same thing for games - and TV shows! But having a label which everyone can recognize (and gravitate towards or away from as they chose!) is a bad thing?
.xxx would be a way of labeling yourself as "please, Congress make a law forbidding my business," but from a provider-consumer/avoider basis, this sounds almost ideal to me. It's when government interferes that things go sour, I guess. (For the record: I vote liberal/Democrat.)
I don't know if Constitutionally it makes sense, and I guess I don't know for sure if using
I mean, the internet is already chock full of graphic porn - wouldn't putting it together in one place (from a TLD point of view) be better than having it all over? For everyone?
I mean, this is kind of like clear labeling on foods of the amount of Sodium, Calories, etc... Isn't it?
If you look on amazon, you see two books by John David Funge:
AI for Computer Games and Animation: A Cognitive Modeling Approach (Hardcover) - August 1999, 220 pages
Artificial Intelligence For Computer Games: An Introduction (Hardcover) - July 2004, 160 pages
So is the same book twice (slightly shortened), or what?
No, religion promulgates the belief that people are inherently bad and full of sin, and without religion, they will behave without morals most of the time.
Good parenting and law constitute a way to get the vast majority of a population to behave morally most of the time.
So, when a religious person (I should say fundamentalist) tries to impact parenting and the law, guess what they do? Try to force people to follow their religious beliefs - in school, if they can get away with it.
I also think it's just about impossible to teach this kind of innate morality (certainly not to those over the age of 10, anyway).
And because many people are too lazy to try to teach their children anything, anymore - we get a national debate about whether religion should be taught in public schools. And with people who think the world is black and white, there's a push for us to cripple children with the belief that everything is right or wrong - for instance, you can't teach abstinance and safe sex, because kids will get confused.
I've seen how people distort the Golden Rule: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." Something like this: Well, I'm right - and you're wrong. And if I were you, I'd want you to help me become right - so I'm going to do everything in my power to stop you from having your beliefs.
It's just religious arrogance to believe that morality comes from the god you believe in, and all other behavior - no matter how good it seems - is inherently flawed by not being blessed by god. That's essentially the logical glitch that allowed good Christian sailors to brutalize the heathens they found in the new world... And that goes a pretty good distance towards explaining Christians who now hate all Muslims as a result of 9/11.
This is quite sad. The entire Slashdot crowd is being very unfair, here. He didn't change what he was saying - he said one thing and then did another. That's totally different. He castigated the community about how things should be, but when faced with harsh reality, he broke the law and tried to convince you that the law is not at fault - someone else made him do it. It's not that the law didn't protect him as a consumer of content, it's that the producer of content did a poor job - so now, he had to break the law - but they still shouldn't fix the law.
Get ready for office!
Yup - I know. But it also happens to work on both compilers I care about. =P
Besides, anyone who thinks an XOR swap is the way to go is either using a ton of data, relative to the size of their platform - or they're an idiot, as you point out ("moronic bitflipping").
void s(int&A,int&B){A^=B^=A^=B;}
// although, this only works when
// A and B refer to different objects.
// is safer, for when people do s(A,A);
void s(int&A,int&B){if(A==B)return;A^=B^=A^=B;}
Or a humane and workable solution: encourage a culture that does not promote sexual promiscuity.
Sure. Fine. Let's start by doing the most effective, realistic things possible, first. As those prove effective, we can work towards better and better solutions.
Starting by condemning the use of condoms is reprehensible.
Of course I'm thinking of Catholocism - we were talking about the Pope.
As far as I'm aware, there's only one thing that would "fix the problem" of people having HIV - develop an early identification test for HIV, test everyone in the world repeatedly for decades, and kill every single person who tests positive.
Either that or develop a cure or vaccine.
One way is barbaric, the other way is science-fiction right now (unfortunately).
Now that we're back to reality, the smartest thing to do is to be as responsible as possible - and telling people in an AIDS-stricken region that using condoms is a sin is completely irresponsible, to the point where I would like to see people who educate against condom use to be prosecuted for war crimes, for participating in biological warfare.
Yes, it's a problem that myths are perpetuated - but I consider that to be a symptom, not a cause. Real education is needed, to try to change behavior. One simple behavioral change is to use a condom instead of having unprotected sex - by fighting that idea, and not offering a functioning alternative, the Catholic church is killing people.
Nope - but telling people in AIDS-stricken regions that using condoms is a sin... not so cool.
She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope."
NASA: Okay - how's about this - we spend all the money required to create a new horoscope, which incorporates the changes we made to the "fabric of the universe", and has just as much predictive power as your old horoscope.
Total price: $0.
Studying astronomy instead of astrology: Priceless.
For bullshit predictions based on the position of the planets at the moment of your birth, there's Madame Marina Bai. For everything else there's NASA.
Why shouldn't the third branch also represent the majority?
Well, all kidding asside, in 2000, the Executive Branch was not elected by the majority.
But the real answer to your question is - The Tyranny of the Majority is what's wrong with it.
Also, all but 2 of the justices were nominated by Republicans, already.
Wow, you certainly wrote a lot. Too bad you didn't read what I wrote.
First, I said that there would be two email systems - the one we currently have, and this new one I'm talking about - so no one is trying to restrict them from being able to send or receive mail.
How do I plan to administer this? You don't think computers can talk to each other? Jeez - what, are you trying to invent problems where none exist?
And finally, I want to point out how it is that I got your reply on Slashdot. I got it as a message that was held for me, by proxy, by a server on your behalf. When I decided that I wanted to check my more trusted email, I logged on to Slashdot, and bam - there it was. What I'm proposing would basically be the same thing as if I had an RSS feed to my Slashdot email, and instead of it being your Slashdot email proxy that I would check, it would be (for instance) your ISP who was holding my email for me on your behalf. That is, if you were someone that I regularly communicated with, and I wanted a slightly better way to ensure that email exchanges with you were slightly more trusted, and also less prone to the lossy nature of our current email system. Take a chill-pill.
Thanks for responding, but geez - you sure had an attitude about it.
And once again, I think public key cryptography is a better approach to guarantee (as much as is possible) the trust relationship - but email is still lossy.
Thanks for the responses, people.
:) Just realized that. I keep checking Slashdot for new articles (or messages), and noticed that Slashdot is acting as my trusted server. I would trust it more, if it were controlled by one of my friends directly... Maybe... :)
But before you burn me in effigy, consider that the system that I just described is basically an RSS feed on my Slashdot mail.
Yup. I'm going to once again say that my idea is worse than public key cryptography.
:)
3. I responded to this - the sender sends two emails - one a "I've got an email for you" through normal means, and a "trusted email" is kept on the sender side. *shrug* Public key crypto is still better than my idea.
4. I don't see how I've *harmed* the signal to noise ratio, but I guess I agree that I haven't improved it for people who routinely accept unsolicited email.
Meh. Like all lame ideas, they seem really great to the inventor until the fourth person correctly points out that they were being an idiot. Thanks.
*shrug*
Polling them would hardly take any time at all.
Thanks for the response. But I should probably just officially retract my idea from discussion - since public key cryptography does all that I want and more... it's just a question of getting my non-nerd friends to use it.
Re-read my post. :)
:)
Specifically the parts that said that we have two types of email, and where I said that 1) we have what we have today.
In other words, I'm not proposing a replacement for current email - just an additional system with improved trust.
Maybe two parallel systems is unworkable, but I don't think so.
On the other hand, if you've already established communications with someone, you can just use public key cryptography to verify their emails... So, yeah... My idea is probably pretty pointless.
Is there anything in particular that made that clear to you?
Why don't we have two types of email...
1) What we've got today - sucks - freakishly low signal to noise ratio
2) Sender Hold Email. I tell my email client the email address of everyone I consider trusted. Largely this is based just on looking at emails that I haven't marked as SPAM. From then on, when I want to read email, my client tries to connect to the address in the sender's email address. My client asks, "Any email for me from this user on your system?"
If you want to imagine the system scaling a bit better, a larger client system representing your domain asks the neighboring domains for emails and sorts them with the same scheme of trust as described above.
The polling rate can be adjusted... Heck, the system can be designed such that the client knows to poll the sender when it receives a notification email through the old system.
Anyway - I officially open this idea to the public domain (assuming it hasn't already been implemented and patented.)
Now comes the part where everyone on Slashdot tells me I'm a moron...
Yes, it's a separate line, but it's the same core. By showcasing the core (even if it's in a separate line), they get the workstation crowd drooling.
The workstation market absolutely is being targeted here by NVidia - since it's the same core.
They're also targeting the enthusiast crowd, maybe two or three years down the line.
They're also targeting the enthusiast with laptop crowd, maybe three or four years down the line.
They're also targeting the average consumer maybe four to six years down the line.
These GPUs have legs - they last for a long, long time. Maybe they get revised some, but the same basic technology, and extremely similar engineering, remains.
The "prosumer" market is a lot more sophisticated than a lot of people think.
I agree with what you're saying - from a design perspective, it's not much more impressive than their previous offerings.
But from an engineering perspective, WOW.
You've got to remember, this is 302 million transistors - what - 5 times a Pentium 4?
1) OF COURSE it's for the prestige. Why do you think car companies make formula-1 race cars - for the consumer market?
2) It teaches them valuable things - they actually reduced the power consumption, this time around.
3) I'm an enthusiast, and I'm strongly considering buying one.
4) You're completely forgetting the workstation market.
5) You're also forgetting developers who need to have development systems to make those games that you'll want to buy when the NEXT product from NVIDIA comes out, and you buy the older boards.
6) And possibly most importantly - this gives you a pretty good idea of what kind of card you're going to have in your computer in two or three years, so you can plan your system around it.
Maybe you can't afford one now, but it's not all about YOU, RIGHT NOW. Think about the future, and other people.
On top of that, this GPU is the same as the previous one from nVidia, with extra pipelines -- it's hardly impressive!
Ha ha. Oh, that's good. Ha ha.
You get a D in "knowing what makes a video card fast."
I can't believe we're not talking about people with synesthesia or who don't have wisdom teeth.
The mutants are among us already.