The Globe is a big place - and "global warming" implies that the *average* temperature is increasing, not that all points on the globe rise as you suggest.
You are correct that sea ice in the southern hemisphere has been increasing, but the *land* ice in Antarctica has not only been decreasing, but has been doing so at an *accelerating* rate... Sea ice anywhere is floating and displaces water. Imagine, for a moment, where there missing land ice in Antarctica is going... in your words, "Uh oh."
I dunno, while the threat is "we'll ban you from Second Life", the constraints on software are darn clear - they want developers to require shrinkwrap EULA to *distribute* downstream derived works, and require developers to assume liability for all downstream developer and user actions. Sounds like GPL conflict to me.
Eh? Because it is blindingly obvious that Nader hurt Gore more than GWB, I'm a bitter Democrat?!? I'm sure I would have been accused of being a sullen Republican had I used the equally apt Perot v GHWB example. sheesh.
Sure - he's welcome to vote for whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants. I was merely pointing out that until such time as the two-party system is abolished, voting for a third party candidate who is similar to your second choice is going to be counter productive. Again, simple game theory. Sorry, but math is harsh.
Personally, I choose to vote as a realist today and work towards ranked ballots. I don't have much respect for people who vote irrationally and then blame someone else. You don't agree? whatever.
There is nothing wrong with Ralph Nader or anyone else running as a third party.
That is an extraordinarily naive (albeit shockingly common) idea. Simple mathematics - under one-round-plurality electoral systems, an unrealistic third candidate does more damage to the candidate furthest from their perspective.
By voting libertarian, he is helping the viable candidate most dissimilar to his own views. If you were foolish enough to vote for Nader if Gore was your second choice, then you have, in fact, got exactly what you deserve.
What is insufferable is that by voting Libertarian, he's showing lack of responsibility for his choices: "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the jerk." Yes, in a perfect world, we'd have instant runoff voting for the candidate(s) of our choice, our vote would be counted properly, and it would even have the effect we'd wish. Now welcome to the real world.
I'll worry about myself - I can invest my money better than the government can - but why should I help you retire?
Really? I'm sure you can get better return for higher risk, but SS is about a safety net - it is low-risk by design. Can your portfolio survive a bear market for 10 years? Come on - we're dying to know - how's your portfolio been doing the last few years? SS isn't borked because of poor investment performance, it is borked because there are a heck of a lot of boomers demanding their cut at the same time.
NO ONE has any sense of DUTY or RESPONSIBILITY now days.
Damn right - if they were responsible we wouldn't need Social Security!
Ack - so you argue that all (*every*) person who runs out of money before they die is irresponsible? This isn't about keeping slacker grannies living out their golden years on the golf course with us peons footing the bill, it is about trying to keep people from dieing on the streets.
I understand what you mean, but characterizing SS as a Ponzi scheme is specious, ignoring that SS funds are invested in the government. Furthermore, as a pool SS fund returns aren't far off performance for similar (extremely low!) risk investments. I suppose you'd rather *all* our vast debt be owned by China?
Faults aside, there are some standout LSL features: it is explicitly event driven and incorporates finite state machine as a basic language structure. It also includes 3 and 4 dimensional vectors as basic data types.
Further, it is worth pointing out that some of the limitations imposed on LSL are quite conscious decisions - energy, for instance, limits some sorts of DOS attacks on the physics model.
Uh - why not talk about channel crosstalk? If your scripts depend on one-to-one comms channels in the clear, you deserve what you get.
Scripts can and do call each other, typically with link messages. There are no language tools to enforce specific chat interfaces, though you neglected to mention dialogs, physical interactions, chat, email, xmlrpc and http communications.
No, they are upgrading the VM to mono (very) shortly. The language is not changing soon, though the move obviously enables future language syntax alternatives. Note that even when/if alternative syntaxes are available, LSL2 is unlikely to go away.
No - all opinions deserve consideration, but it specious to think that all opinions are equally valid: in particular, liberals find opinions that argue for a reduction of choice repugnant.
Liberals do not preach relativism as such but rather diversity - they look dumb when they feel compelled to support extreme positions on principle rather than on substance ("Um, yah, I hate what the Nazis are saying, but I think they ought to be able to say it.") Conservatives look dumb when they make meta-arguments about so-called-accepting liberals not accepting their perspective ("Poor oppressed little me: the nasty liberals don't love my hate"). Mainly, liberals and conservatives talk past each other - obscuring what they actually care about with words they think will successfully prove their points.
Look at it this way: liberals seek to optimize society through a Genetic Algorithm or Simulated Annealing, Conservatives through Hillclimbing./geek
Liberals fear stagnation, Conservatives fear chaos.
Ah, the arrogance of the right. What is it about you people that means you can't accept the fact that people may have considered an issue as carefully as you have and simply come to a different conclusion?
But no, there is one correct answer, and it's the one you have (shades of Stalin's historical inevitability there) and anyone who disagrees needs re-education, or is misled, or brainwashed by lying liberal media etc etc
Without the principle, we are left with having to have full trust that whoever is sitting in the big chair in the Oval Office and all of his delegates be (1) omniscient, (2) have unflagging good will, (3) is interested in Justice, (4) is inerrant.
The problem is that even if you believe that GWB is the embodiment of these qualities, do you think Hillary (or whichever joker is next) will too? Remember, we are setting precedent here - what Congress has handed to the office of the president will transfer to the next one.
Furthermore, if one is willing to accept the possibility of a rigged election, then he or she must also be willing to accept the possibility of rigged polling
The difference is that the election is performed in private by a single organization, using its own tightly-controlled equipment, who does its own counting and reporting. Exit polls are performed in the open, with highly distributed data collection and reporting, often by competing organizations.
Significant divergence of election results and exit polls is highly suggestive of corruption (of one or the other): The problem is that the exit polls have been picked apart in excruciating depth and nobody has been able to make a convincing argument that the degree of error is due to intentional corruption or unintentional bias. On the other side, attempts to confirm the validity of the actual election results have uniformly been met withstonewalling, ridicule, and highly suspicious behavior.
I'm not concerned so much about elections past - but these issues really REALLY need to be fixed to have a hope that future elections will be more trustworthy. It is extremely worrisome that so many areas are abandoning systems that have any sort of oversight, redundant checks, feedback to voter, or possibility of recount.
Why here, on slashdot, anyone is willing to accept the infallability and incorruptibility of single-vendor voting machines (let alone government officials) is beyond me... we trust Diebold to have our best interests in mind when Microsoft is Evil?? The political party that has owned the government for the last 6 years is absolutely vituous when it comes to elections, but are power-hungry, money-grubbing, big-business suck-ups when it comes to the broadcast flag, FOSS, recording rights??
I don't understand why this is a partisan issue - could Republicans actually believe that the shoe will never be on the other foot??
Now... (I'm splitting hairs here, but) science fundamentally *cannot* prove that evolution is a fact. There's no way we can show that there is no god out there pulling strings to manipulate molecules in just the way that we would expect. In fact, there are very few 'facts' that can be 'proven' scientifically. The only thing that science can do is to show what *isn't* true.
Cool! You have just demonstrated that there is, and cannot ever be, any such thing as "Fact".... and your last sentance is not true - if you postulate a god out there pulling strings, the concept of "fact" is meaningless - nothing can show what is or is not true because nothing (in this world, at least) has access to what is really going on.
The *fact* is that evolution is "fact" because it is historically accurate (observations of the record are consistant with evolution), it is observably accurate (you can see biological mechanisms implementing the "theory"), and it is predictive (there are numerous experiments you can perform even on your own that demonstrates evolutionary theory's utility).
Sure, you could postulate that a Deity is pulling all the strings and making it all happen just like it does - but doing so absolutely nothing to the theory but non-predictive complexity. Belief in "ID" requires that you believe that the world is a deception.
No idea how much truth there really is in that sentiment, but, it is worth pointing out that TFA is hardly from an unbiased source itself - one might event say, The mouthpiece of pretty much everyone who stands to lose most immediately should warming-from-pollution turn out to be true. Further, Dr. Lindzen is, in fact, a member of the same group he accuses of fueling the controversy for personal gain - as someone both more senior than the average climate researcher and as someone on the opposite side of the alleged controvery, it isn't much of a stretch to wonder if he himself is feeling the pinch.
Just sayin'...
Legal music players - works with any format file (yes, including OGG), even live performances!. Listen to the audio once, and then you can replay it any number of times on any of these devices! Legally!! Of course, it uses lossy compression, but with repeated "listenings" of the original source, it'll get better.
Heh - and look at this stupidfoo guy - he posts on slashdot where people are constantly foaming at the mouth... best not take him seriously as he associates with potty mouths. But seriously - pressing guilt by association in large communities is just plain idiotic. If you can convince someone other than your base of that, then more power to you, I suppose, but you'll lose credibility from anyone who knows better.
Suppression of the "over the line" posts is (part of) what moderation is for, regardless of style. I find it fascinating to compare the moderation approaches of various blogs: dKos and other progressive community blogs (boomantribune, TPMcafe, etc), tend to use peer moderation (as does slashdot) whereas most of the conservative ommunity blogs (e.g. FreeRepublic, LGF, heck - even RedState) tend to use a more benevolent dictator approach. Note: that there is absolutely nothing wrong with running your blog however you want - I'm just sayin'...
My question and concern is that such "blogs" may fall outside of current legal restrictions and requirements for truthful dissemination of information..
Do you have the same question and concern for stories and comments on slashdot? Surely slashdot has more power than any of the political blogs (even dKos) due to its vast readership and so should be subject to any such rules?
Indeed - If you filter out the duplicates, you get 874 (*nix) vs 672 (*dos)... if you further drop the obvious major-vendor-specific reports (OSX, SCO, SGI, HPUX, AIX, but leaving in *BSD, and *linux on the flawed assumption that they're actually multiple-vendor, even if not so reported), you end up with around 752.
Never mind that the majority of both lists are third-part applications anyway... yah, so exploited applications on *dos are much more dangerous than *nix - it is still harder to assign specific blame to microshaft, even if they made it easy to corrupt their platform.
Shouldn't MS be upset at this? After all, here is Sony, willfully damaging MS's intellectual property in order to protect their own. The battle has been joined - the giants are at war and the battleground is your windoze pc...
He did certainly popularize the phrase "information superhighway", while pushing a whole lot of tech legislation. And do not make the mistake of equating internet with arpanet - the whole point of "inter" was the merging of many disparate network into a logical whole... Anyway, much as I dislike it, in non-geek circles "internet" is www.
Unless "click on" means got tricked into clicking on and "buy" means accidentally got further along in the (ahem) "ordering process."
I don't believe it for a second.
Greylisting is a Very Good Thing... not a complete solution, but it does a pretty good job for the common cases. I've been reachable by the same email address for over 20 years now - I sure wish Google News obfuscated my pre-rise-of-spam usenet postings!
Obvious problems with greylisting: semi-legit spammers (who use real MTA, so they still get through), insecure mailing lists (you care about the legit content), real people who use broken MTAs (like my financial advisor, grumble!).
He gets to say "darn, I was was sure an idiot for believing that black was white and 2+2=9"... or maybe "Yay! The world is over. Hey... this isn't Heaven!".
If he voted for the other guy, he gets to say "See - I told you so."
if either guy blows up the world, all you get to say "darn, maybe I should have been less of an ignorant apathetic loser and lifted a finger to vote out the Anti-Christ."
Who to vote for? Well, the guys in office right now seem to be headed full speed ahead into a blows-up-the-world kind of direction - I don't see a whole lot of evidence that the other guys are as evil/stupid/ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
The Globe is a big place - and "global warming" implies that the *average* temperature is increasing, not that all points on the globe rise as you suggest. You are correct that sea ice in the southern hemisphere has been increasing, but the *land* ice in Antarctica has not only been decreasing, but has been doing so at an *accelerating* rate... Sea ice anywhere is floating and displaces water. Imagine, for a moment, where there missing land ice in Antarctica is going... in your words, "Uh oh."
I dunno, while the threat is "we'll ban you from Second Life", the constraints on software are darn clear - they want developers to require shrinkwrap EULA to *distribute* downstream derived works, and require developers to assume liability for all downstream developer and user actions. Sounds like GPL conflict to me.
Sure - he's welcome to vote for whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants. I was merely pointing out that until such time as the two-party system is abolished, voting for a third party candidate who is similar to your second choice is going to be counter productive. Again, simple game theory. Sorry, but math is harsh.
Personally, I choose to vote as a realist today and work towards ranked ballots. I don't have much respect for people who vote irrationally and then blame someone else. You don't agree? whatever.
There is nothing wrong with Ralph Nader or anyone else running as a third party.
That is an extraordinarily naive (albeit shockingly common) idea. Simple mathematics - under one-round-plurality electoral systems, an unrealistic third candidate does more damage to the candidate furthest from their perspective.
By voting libertarian, he is helping the viable candidate most dissimilar to his own views. If you were foolish enough to vote for Nader if Gore was your second choice, then you have, in fact, got exactly what you deserve.
What is insufferable is that by voting Libertarian, he's showing lack of responsibility for his choices: "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the jerk." Yes, in a perfect world, we'd have instant runoff voting for the candidate(s) of our choice, our vote would be counted properly, and it would even have the effect we'd wish. Now welcome to the real world.
I'll worry about myself - I can invest my money better than the government can - but why should I help you retire?
Really? I'm sure you can get better return for higher risk, but SS is about a safety net - it is low-risk by design. Can your portfolio survive a bear market for 10 years? Come on - we're dying to know - how's your portfolio been doing the last few years? SS isn't borked because of poor investment performance, it is borked because there are a heck of a lot of boomers demanding their cut at the same time.
NO ONE has any sense of DUTY or RESPONSIBILITY now days. Damn right - if they were responsible we wouldn't need Social Security!
Ack - so you argue that all (*every*) person who runs out of money before they die is irresponsible? This isn't about keeping slacker grannies living out their golden years on the golf course with us peons footing the bill, it is about trying to keep people from dieing on the streets.
I understand what you mean, but characterizing SS as a Ponzi scheme is specious, ignoring that SS funds are invested in the government. Furthermore, as a pool SS fund returns aren't far off performance for similar (extremely low!) risk investments. I suppose you'd rather *all* our vast debt be owned by China?
Further, it is worth pointing out that some of the limitations imposed on LSL are quite conscious decisions - energy, for instance, limits some sorts of DOS attacks on the physics model.
Uh - why not talk about channel crosstalk? If your scripts depend on one-to-one comms channels in the clear, you deserve what you get.
Scripts can and do call each other, typically with link messages. There are no language tools to enforce specific chat interfaces, though you neglected to mention dialogs, physical interactions, chat, email, xmlrpc and http communications.
No, they are upgrading the VM to mono (very) shortly. The language is not changing soon, though the move obviously enables future language syntax alternatives. Note that even when/if alternative syntaxes are available, LSL2 is unlikely to go away.
Liberals do not preach relativism as such but rather diversity - they look dumb when they feel compelled to support extreme positions on principle rather than on substance ("Um, yah, I hate what the Nazis are saying, but I think they ought to be able to say it.") Conservatives look dumb when they make meta-arguments about so-called-accepting liberals not accepting their perspective ("Poor oppressed little me: the nasty liberals don't love my hate"). Mainly, liberals and conservatives talk past each other - obscuring what they actually care about with words they think will successfully prove their points.
Look at it this way: liberals seek to optimize society through a Genetic Algorithm or Simulated Annealing, Conservatives through Hillclimbing./geek
Liberals fear stagnation, Conservatives fear chaos.
The more you dilute the pirated software, the more powerful the effect on the market!
The problem is that even if you believe that GWB is the embodiment of these qualities, do you think Hillary (or whichever joker is next) will too? Remember, we are setting precedent here - what Congress has handed to the office of the president will transfer to the next one.
Intended: Y:75, N:25
Registered: Y:50, N:50
Tabulated: Y:45, N:60
Reported: Landslide!
Significant divergence of election results and exit polls is highly suggestive of corruption (of one or the other): The problem is that the exit polls have been picked apart in excruciating depth and nobody has been able to make a convincing argument that the degree of error is due to intentional corruption or unintentional bias. On the other side, attempts to confirm the validity of the actual election results have uniformly been met withstonewalling, ridicule, and highly suspicious behavior.
I'm not concerned so much about elections past - but these issues really REALLY need to be fixed to have a hope that future elections will be more trustworthy. It is extremely worrisome that so many areas are abandoning systems that have any sort of oversight, redundant checks, feedback to voter, or possibility of recount.
Why here, on slashdot, anyone is willing to accept the infallability and incorruptibility of single-vendor voting machines (let alone government officials) is beyond me... we trust Diebold to have our best interests in mind when Microsoft is Evil?? The political party that has owned the government for the last 6 years is absolutely vituous when it comes to elections, but are power-hungry, money-grubbing, big-business suck-ups when it comes to the broadcast flag, FOSS, recording rights??
I don't understand why this is a partisan issue - could Republicans actually believe that the shoe will never be on the other foot??
The *fact* is that evolution is "fact" because it is historically accurate (observations of the record are consistant with evolution), it is observably accurate (you can see biological mechanisms implementing the "theory"), and it is predictive (there are numerous experiments you can perform even on your own that demonstrates evolutionary theory's utility).
Sure, you could postulate that a Deity is pulling all the strings and making it all happen just like it does - but doing so absolutely nothing to the theory but non-predictive complexity. Belief in "ID" requires that you believe that the world is a deception.
No idea how much truth there really is in that sentiment, but, it is worth pointing out that TFA is hardly from an unbiased source itself - one might event say, The mouthpiece of pretty much everyone who stands to lose most immediately should warming-from-pollution turn out to be true. Further, Dr. Lindzen is, in fact, a member of the same group he accuses of fueling the controversy for personal gain - as someone both more senior than the average climate researcher and as someone on the opposite side of the alleged controvery, it isn't much of a stretch to wonder if he himself is feeling the pinch. Just sayin'...
Legal music players - works with any format file (yes, including OGG), even live performances!. Listen to the audio once, and then you can replay it any number of times on any of these devices! Legally!! Of course, it uses lossy compression, but with repeated "listenings" of the original source, it'll get better.
Suppression of the "over the line" posts is (part of) what moderation is for, regardless of style. I find it fascinating to compare the moderation approaches of various blogs: dKos and other progressive community blogs (boomantribune, TPMcafe, etc), tend to use peer moderation (as does slashdot) whereas most of the conservative ommunity blogs (e.g. FreeRepublic, LGF, heck - even RedState) tend to use a more benevolent dictator approach. Note: that there is absolutely nothing wrong with running your blog however you want - I'm just sayin'...
Never mind that the majority of both lists are third-part applications anyway... yah, so exploited applications on *dos are much more dangerous than *nix - it is still harder to assign specific blame to microshaft, even if they made it easy to corrupt their platform.
Shouldn't MS be upset at this? After all, here is Sony, willfully damaging MS's intellectual property in order to protect their own. The battle has been joined - the giants are at war and the battleground is your windoze pc...
He did certainly popularize the phrase "information superhighway", while pushing a whole lot of tech legislation. And do not make the mistake of equating internet with arpanet - the whole point of "inter" was the merging of many disparate network into a logical whole... Anyway, much as I dislike it, in non-geek circles "internet" is www.
Unless "click on" means got tricked into clicking on and "buy" means accidentally got further along in the (ahem) "ordering process." I don't believe it for a second.
Greylisting is a Very Good Thing... not a complete solution, but it does a pretty good job for the common cases. I've been reachable by the same email address for over 20 years now - I sure wish Google News obfuscated my pre-rise-of-spam usenet postings! Obvious problems with greylisting: semi-legit spammers (who use real MTA, so they still get through), insecure mailing lists (you care about the legit content), real people who use broken MTAs (like my financial advisor, grumble!).
- He gets to say "darn, I was was sure an idiot for believing that black was white and 2+2=9"... or maybe "Yay! The world is over. Hey... this isn't Heaven!".
- If he voted for the other guy, he gets to say "See - I told you so."
- if either guy blows up the world, all you get to say "darn, maybe I should have been less of an ignorant apathetic loser and lifted a finger to vote out the Anti-Christ."
Who to vote for? Well, the guys in office right now seem to be headed full speed ahead into a blows-up-the-world kind of direction - I don't see a whole lot of evidence that the other guys are as evil/stupid/ignorant.