And here all this time, I thought sex was necessary for reproduction... Guess that explains "The Virgin" Mary.
> So, what my theory is concerned with is self-organizing natural systems, and it deals with the cause of form.
He showed such promise. Then,...
> organizing fields, form-shaping fields, which I call morphic fields,
Uhh... Gee, Crystalline structures couldn't possibly have anything to do with the shape of the atoms/molecules and how they bond together. Naaaaah, that would be scientifically provable. Let's assume there are these fields that we can't see, feel, or prove exist... and they all happen to be in exactly the right place at the right time when needed to make something grow. I wonder: If one of these morphic fields suddenly appeared inside my body, if part of me would turn into a diamond. Then I could have it surgically removed & sell it for millions!!! BRILLIANT! I'm off to patent a morphic field generator!
> No, all that's needed is for you, the decision maker, to be unaware of the outcome of your decision before it's made.
What if someone else happens to be aware of it? Does their past-awareness suddenly change to match that which actually happened? Cascading changes to the future for changes to the past. That would be interesting... except that we'd never know.
> the act of going back in time and being able to pass information when you do it completly negates cause and effect.
Unless "time" and "cause & effect" are personal concepts. As we know, time travels at different speeds depending on how fast we are travelling, ourselves (eg, a watch on ground & one after a plane flight will not be perfectly synchronized).
If I go back in time, my personal interactions still rely on cause & effect, as does everything else. WRT passing information, in my personal perspective, "the future" has already happened (in my string of personal events I call "time"), so the effect is still caused by the future cause, although from an observer's perspective, it has not happened yet.
To put it simply, just because you cannot see the cause of something it does not mean the cause does not exist, nor that "cause & effect" is broken.
Then there's the theory that if time travel is possible, the effects of a time traveller appearing in the past has already been accounted for. IE, if it's possible and someone eventually travels back past now, they have already been "here" even though he has not built the machine yet.
That's a rough one to bring full circle, since someone would surely try to bring something back in time to advance humanity or money to invest/bet. Because of one of many time paradoxes: if I go back in time to show a jet engine, there would be no need for me to do it in the future, so I don't: where did the first come from then, if not another universe/timeline/whatever.
Did I ever say I had to make sense? Maybe I did and just haven't done/did it yet. Brain... hurts...
> Natural selection and those portions are present in the Creationist model
Which version of creationism are you talking about? The one I am familiar with says that Evolution is the Devil spreading misinformation to the humans. I've never heard a Creationist accept any part of Natural Selection. Science is evil, if you don't believe the Earth is 6K-10K years old, well, you're going to burn in Hell for all eternity.
> Science has always assumed that [...] God has nothing to do with it
Science has never assumed any such thing. Individuals may assume that, but "Science" is a process, not a statement of fact. Take a random scientist. They probably believe in God in some form. I think it's a fairy tale, but Science doesn't think about it at all, they are disconnected topics.
Aaaaaah, I see, so the Wiki entry was just an incomplete description. That makes more sense now, thanks! I was imagining like a 6-char buffer, which would be insanely hard w/o a stack of tubes.
> depending on how much room was still left in the tube when their keys were pressed
That still doesn't make sense to me. The Wiki said there was only enough room in the tube for one tab to fit in. Assuming they were wrong and it's slightly more space than that, as soon as the second tab came down, all the rest of the space between the balls would be taken up by that tab. Therefore, the third & successive keys would all be at the same point: resting on top. At that point, it's luck that decides which one gets through first (or it "hangs" with three tabs wedged into a tight space).
While trying to comprehend this, however, I realized that if you had a couple of these tubes, from bottom to top each one having enough room for one more tab than the tube underneath, each time the "active" key is released the rest of the tabs would go down one tube. Of course, all your springs would require exactly the same tension to them, or else an overly-tense key could jump past the others.
I just can't see how a single tube can accomplish more than a 1-character "buffer." Oh well, maybe I'm just stupid. I'll go look for a graphical representation of this on google or something. Thanks for trying to help anyway!
I just looked at the Wiki entry on that, and I don't understand how that is anything like a buffer. The way it's described, all it does is make sure that while one key is depressed, no other can be pressed.
That's not a buffer, it's jam protection. Is the Wiki entry wrong, or am I misunderstanding something?
> So the whole thing was anger and mob mentality towards something they didn't fully understand
Their misunderstanding of the facts does not change the point. They were still being taxed without representation. Money is not the only metric in the world. People can get many things at WalMart cheaper than anywhere else. Some people think WalMart is the great Satan because they strongarm their vendors (among other things). Do you say people that choose not to shop there have a "mob mentality" since they do not know the complete workings of WalMart (and economics in general) before making that decision? Their ignorance of the complete picture does not change the fact that their initial premise is still correct. Just because they can get something cheaper, it doesn't mean that the seller gets some kind of moral superiority or a free pass to dodge ethics.
> Revolution doesn't mean petty theft
Revolution involves anything that makes you heard and gets things changed (ideally, for the better). Revolution does not fall exclusively (even usually) within the realm of legality.
> Drastic change. Like, revolutionary change. > I choose to be a member of this society, and while I choose to partake in its distractions and pleasures, I respect its rules and laws.
These two statements are, for the most part, mutually exclusive. Drastic, revolutionary change is usually in direct opposition to existing law. Otherwise, there would be no need for revolution. Of course, it's not always the case, but what is "peaceful revolution?" Getting laws to be changed? That's not revolution, that's how government is supposed to work. When it doesn't work, you have to break laws to get it to work.
THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
> > most bittorent users don't even know what 'source code' is. > but they do know what Azureus, Bittornado, and ABC are
In addition, they know that they got it for free -- if they keep looking for free software, maybe they will eventually realize the words "open source" crop up pretty often. Or maybe they think they're getting away with something. Either way, it's still "supporting" OSS whether they know it or not.
> I have not seen a compelling reason why it would only count for Freenet, and not for a proxyserver
Because the public is ignorant and an "authority figure" can just say something is the case and it will be believed to be evil. Not a compelling reason, per se, but a realistic one.
> You'd want to start at the top and break away rock and somehow let it slide into the ocean in a controlled and gradual way
What if the majority of friction holding it together is focused near the top? If so, as soon as we get to a certain point, same result, just slightly smaller. There isn't a simple solution.
> prior to 2001, the chances of an aeroplane flying into a skyscraper were pretty low, no?
Well, yes, but it's exactly the same chances of it happening today, minus a handful of idiots who hadn't thought of it before and REALLY think it's a good idea. Limiting that to those dumb enough to think it's a good idea, competant enough to pull it off, and hadn't thought of it before, I think it's a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
> I'm not [...] certain the New York metropolitan area could be evacuated in 10 days.
Yeah, you know there would be way more than one idiotic jerk thinking "Oh, a wave 10 meters high? I'll just go into one of those tall buildings so that I'll be above it!
> you would not be able to hear sounds from around an isolated object - which is onviously not true.
Eeh... I'll refrain from saying you are wrong, per se, just not "looking at the big picture," to use Managementese.
The sound "reflects" off of particles in the air, or vibrates them to propogate, including the air itself. If that isolated object were TRULY isolated (ala a vacuum), no, you would not be able to hear around it. Or at all. or live, for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
> if something cannot be proved to exist, we have to assume that it does not.
I can't prove that you exist. QED, goodbye.
> Animals spontaneously grow.
...
... and they all happen to be in exactly the right place at the right time when needed to make something grow. I wonder: If one of these morphic fields suddenly appeared inside my body, if part of me would turn into a diamond. Then I could have it surgically removed & sell it for millions!!! BRILLIANT! I'm off to patent a morphic field generator!
And here all this time, I thought sex was necessary for reproduction... Guess that explains "The Virgin" Mary.
> So, what my theory is concerned with is self-organizing natural systems, and it deals with the cause of form.
He showed such promise. Then,
> organizing fields, form-shaping fields, which I call morphic fields,
Uhh... Gee, Crystalline structures couldn't possibly have anything to do with the shape of the atoms/molecules and how they bond together. Naaaaah, that would be scientifically provable. Let's assume there are these fields that we can't see, feel, or prove exist
> No, all that's needed is for you, the decision maker, to be unaware of the outcome of your decision before it's made.
What if someone else happens to be aware of it? Does their past-awareness suddenly change to match that which actually happened? Cascading changes to the future for changes to the past. That would be interesting... except that we'd never know.
> the act of going back in time and being able to pass information when you do it completly negates cause and effect.
Unless "time" and "cause & effect" are personal concepts. As we know, time travels at different speeds depending on how fast we are travelling, ourselves (eg, a watch on ground & one after a plane flight will not be perfectly synchronized).
If I go back in time, my personal interactions still rely on cause & effect, as does everything else. WRT passing information, in my personal perspective, "the future" has already happened (in my string of personal events I call "time"), so the effect is still caused by the future cause, although from an observer's perspective, it has not happened yet.
To put it simply, just because you cannot see the cause of something it does not mean the cause does not exist, nor that "cause & effect" is broken.
Then there's the theory that if time travel is possible, the effects of a time traveller appearing in the past has already been accounted for. IE, if it's possible and someone eventually travels back past now, they have already been "here" even though he has not built the machine yet.
That's a rough one to bring full circle, since someone would surely try to bring something back in time to advance humanity or money to invest/bet. Because of one of many time paradoxes: if I go back in time to show a jet engine, there would be no need for me to do it in the future, so I don't: where did the first come from then, if not another universe/timeline/whatever.
Did I ever say I had to make sense? Maybe I did and just haven't done/did it yet. Brain... hurts...
> Natural selection and those portions are present in the Creationist model
Which version of creationism are you talking about? The one I am familiar with says that Evolution is the Devil spreading misinformation to the humans. I've never heard a Creationist accept any part of Natural Selection. Science is evil, if you don't believe the Earth is 6K-10K years old, well, you're going to burn in Hell for all eternity.
> Science has always assumed that [...] God has nothing to do with it
Science has never assumed any such thing. Individuals may assume that, but "Science" is a process, not a statement of fact. Take a random scientist. They probably believe in God in some form. I think it's a fairy tale, but Science doesn't think about it at all, they are disconnected topics.
Aaaaaah, I see, so the Wiki entry was just an incomplete description. That makes more sense now, thanks! I was imagining like a 6-char buffer, which would be insanely hard w/o a stack of tubes.
> depending on how much room was still left in the tube when their keys were pressed
That still doesn't make sense to me. The Wiki said there was only enough room in the tube for one tab to fit in. Assuming they were wrong and it's slightly more space than that, as soon as the second tab came down, all the rest of the space between the balls would be taken up by that tab. Therefore, the third & successive keys would all be at the same point: resting on top. At that point, it's luck that decides which one gets through first (or it "hangs" with three tabs wedged into a tight space).
While trying to comprehend this, however, I realized that if you had a couple of these tubes, from bottom to top each one having enough room for one more tab than the tube underneath, each time the "active" key is released the rest of the tabs would go down one tube. Of course, all your springs would require exactly the same tension to them, or else an overly-tense key could jump past the others.
I just can't see how a single tube can accomplish more than a 1-character "buffer." Oh well, maybe I'm just stupid. I'll go look for a graphical representation of this on google or something. Thanks for trying to help anyway!
Admittedly, I just copied & pasted that and know nothing of GTK programming, so I don't understand why your rebuttal is brilliant :)
Is it because of the choice of includes or because of actual functionality?
> congressional overlords saying "HMm.. time for war eh? Well, how about Iraq."
Don't mis-underestimate the "that bastard tried to kill my daddy" explanation.
I just looked at the Wiki entry on that, and I don't understand how that is anything like a buffer. The way it's described, all it does is make sure that while one key is depressed, no other can be pressed.
That's not a buffer, it's jam protection. Is the Wiki entry wrong, or am I misunderstanding something?
> Food is a need, a necessity. Everything traded on p2p networks is a luxury
Which is even more reason to not care about the "starving millionaires" who peddle their luxuries.
Not that I claim Copyright Infringement is legal nor should be.
> So the whole thing was anger and mob mentality towards something they didn't fully understand
Their misunderstanding of the facts does not change the point. They were still being taxed without representation. Money is not the only metric in the world. People can get many things at WalMart cheaper than anywhere else. Some people think WalMart is the great Satan because they strongarm their vendors (among other things). Do you say people that choose not to shop there have a "mob mentality" since they do not know the complete workings of WalMart (and economics in general) before making that decision? Their ignorance of the complete picture does not change the fact that their initial premise is still correct. Just because they can get something cheaper, it doesn't mean that the seller gets some kind of moral superiority or a free pass to dodge ethics.
> Revolution doesn't mean petty theft
Revolution involves anything that makes you heard and gets things changed (ideally, for the better). Revolution does not fall exclusively (even usually) within the realm of legality.
> Drastic change. Like, revolutionary change.
> I choose to be a member of this society, and while I choose to partake in its distractions and pleasures, I respect its rules and laws.
These two statements are, for the most part, mutually exclusive. Drastic, revolutionary change is usually in direct opposition to existing law. Otherwise, there would be no need for revolution. Of course, it's not always the case, but what is "peaceful revolution?" Getting laws to be changed? That's not revolution, that's how government is supposed to work. When it doesn't work, you have to break laws to get it to work.
THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
> > most bittorent users don't even know what 'source code' is.
> but they do know what Azureus, Bittornado, and ABC are
In addition, they know that they got it for free -- if they keep looking for free software, maybe they will eventually realize the words "open source" crop up pretty often. Or maybe they think they're getting away with something. Either way, it's still "supporting" OSS whether they know it or not.
> I have not seen a compelling reason why it would only count for Freenet, and not for a proxyserver
Because the public is ignorant and an "authority figure" can just say something is the case and it will be believed to be evil. Not a compelling reason, per se, but a realistic one.
It's scary that you know this.
Here's one for GTK. Nowhere near as complex as the Windows example, but certainly harder than just text:
Very good point, WRT trademarks.
:)
> I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic for "intellectual property" or against
Devil's advocate
Really, I'm pretty much against software patents & copyrights, I just like to debate for the heck of it.
> the point was that the eu was giving $4 million
Yeah, I know. I didn't mean to say that it changed the "correctness" of your statement.
> You'd want to start at the top and break away rock and somehow let it slide into the ocean in a controlled and gradual way
What if the majority of friction holding it together is focused near the top? If so, as soon as we get to a certain point, same result, just slightly smaller. There isn't a simple solution.
> prior to 2001, the chances of an aeroplane flying into a skyscraper were pretty low, no?
Well, yes, but it's exactly the same chances of it happening today, minus a handful of idiots who hadn't thought of it before and REALLY think it's a good idea. Limiting that to those dumb enough to think it's a good idea, competant enough to pull it off, and hadn't thought of it before, I think it's a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
> I'm not [...] certain the New York metropolitan area could be evacuated in 10 days.
Yeah, you know there would be way more than one idiotic jerk thinking "Oh, a wave 10 meters high? I'll just go into one of those tall buildings so that I'll be above it!
> > [that's why you can't see around corners]
> Speak for yourself.
I knew I wasn't the only one with eye stalks! Damn lieing Circus manager.
> you would not be able to hear sounds from around an isolated object - which is onviously not true.
Eeh... I'll refrain from saying you are wrong, per se, just not "looking at the big picture," to use Managementese.
The sound "reflects" off of particles in the air, or vibrates them to propogate, including the air itself. If that isolated object were TRULY isolated (ala a vacuum), no, you would not be able to hear around it. Or at all. or live, for that matter.