If anything, you have just demonstrated the parent's point. Sure, LISP/ML/Prolog are different at their core from C/C++. But that is exactly the issue. IF you had taken a theory of languages course in a respectable BSCS program, you would know that the first two are functional program languages while the latter is a logic programming language. C/C++ and all other c-like languages on the other hand are imperative languages. IF you had the correct academic experience, you WOULD be able to understand why the first two mentioned paradigms exist and why they are so important (ever heard of lambda calculus???).
Re:I'm so lost in love
on
Is Louder Better?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Jesus you are dumb. This isn't subjective. Take a look at the numbers (if you even read the article...) regarding the number of samples clipped by the power amp.
This is a very valid complaint (usually made by those within the industry). When you master each track so that they are all 'loud', you are essentially removing any difference in gain between these channels (also an objective measure). Thus, the music is percieved as 'better' for those people who have music systems incapable of producing the full frequency range at a relatively even sound pressure level. For those of us able to hear the difference, the music is far less dynamic than it should be.
"Looking suspicious" and "mouthing off" are not illegal last time I checked. Remember that little thing called the first amemdment, it protects both of these acts. His stated goal was to get arrested, true, but I am sure you can see the difference between getting arrested for "looking suspicious" and getting arrested while involved in civil disobedience for an issue he believes in (or maybe he doesn't, but there still is a difference).
PS. nobody forces anybody to buy acid. It not even something that you can force someone to get addicted to, seeing as it has not addictive properties.
What are you talking about, refusing to show ID and refusing to give up your 4th amendment rights (remember frisking is legal, but searchs of backpacks, etc are not without consent of the owner) are COMPLETELY LEGAL. Being beligerent to a police officer (or anyone for that matter) is a PROTECTED RIGHT. I can act however I damn please just so long as I don't break the law, which this journalist didn't. Being held just so you can be "checked on" is not legal. It constitutes arrest, which requires valid suspiscion of wrong doing (and no, "looking suspicious" does not count).
Pardon, does the fact that this country's constitution has a little clause called the First Amendment escape you??? What the journalist did was, admitedly, beligerent, BUT, it was not in any way illegal. He did not in fact have grenades in his pockets and based on the circumstances there was no reason to believe he had any. Thus, the excuse of arresting him for being armed was not valid. He was completely within his rights to tell the officer that he needed a search warrent to search his possesions (remeber that you can search his person, but not something like a backpack). This even holds true if he does use the word "fuck". Like I said, it was beligerent, but not against the law.
When you have a country where the police have the right to arrest someone for being beligerent without any other pretext (and then get to make up stuff after the fact to explain their motives (such as the rumor of acid)) it is called a POLICE STATE.
Please don't tell me that you can't see the difference between getting arrested for walking down the street and getting arrested for actually doing something AGAINST THE LAW???? If he was going to the protest, willing to get arrested, he intended to get arrested for engaging in civil disobedience, not arrested for no reason. Please, moderate the comment to which I am responding down. It is not insightful at all.
Libertarianism can allow for nearly any type of economic system around (except for those that propagate themselves through authoritarian systems, eg governmental communism and welfare capitalism). Libertarianism _only_ refers to the government's role in a person's life. This is a distinction that I have not seen one poster make yet.
There are many libertarians who believe in laisser-faire capitalism for the economic system to follow, but there are those who would rather cooperate and form what is in essence a socialist society. Because the fundamental tenets of libertarianism demand that participation in this society be voluntary, we do not fall into the same traps as we do with governmental socialism (namely having the system turn into a dictatorship, something that is remarkably close to facism, which as we all know was defined by it's creator, Benito Mussolini, as governmental capitalism).
So please, before anyone tries to claim that libertarianism is anything BUT lack of governmental intervention, please reconsider your arguements.
Anarchism is entirely valid. All is means is lack of hierarchical gov't. It is the state that humans come from and if we were to go BACK to it (this does not mean going back to living in caves and becoming luddites) then many of our problems would be solved. To clarify my point: if all large institutions (that are NOT the same as people) whether governmental or corporate were either abolished (voluntarily, this would have to be a popular revolution) or put in their place (that is, recognizing that these institutions do not have the same rights as people seeing as they are not in fact people) then society would flourish in general. Society is not built upon anarchy.
That is in fact a false statement. Society _originiated_ in a state of anarchy (ie people voluntarily cooperating as opposed to having a leader tell them what to do).
Also let me clarify the idea of violence not including the idea of property damage. There was once an anarchist named Pierre Joseph Proudhon who said "property is theft, property is freedom, property is impossible". Essentially this means that without _personnal_ property we cannot be individuals (hence the idea of forced communal property as practiced be supporters of governmental communism, but not voluntary communism). However, such ideas as corporate property (that property which is derived from the sweat and blood of the workers), property that is not in fact controlled by the workers, is theft. The corporate bosses (or government) did not produce this property hence it is not theirs to claim that it's destruction is violating their rights (hence the quote from tao.ca that you took out of context). This sort of property is "impossible" because the corporate "bosses" did not make it and their control over this property is illusury (because it is not theirs to control).
Sorry to shock you, but the United States has NEVER been a pure democracy. It is and always has been a republic. It most certainly is not a "government of the people" because not everyone has equal representation. I am sure there are many libertarians (me included) or other non Republicrats who post here will end up voting for a candidate in the upcoming presidential elections who will not get elected (eg Harry Browne or Ralph Nader). This means that each of us is not equally "represented", we are represented by who the majority has elected (ie tyranny of the majority).
As well, the current governmental system would have the citizens of this country believe that there are only two choices for president (or any other office), Democrat or Republican. Most people choose one or the other because that person is the "lesser of two evils". Most people cannot imagine voting for someone who is not a member of two major parties.
Second, our government is doing fine. People say we are moving away from the Bill of Rights as if right after it was signed we were all freely getting high, having sex in every flavor, reading whatever we wanted, and worshiping the god(s) or object of our choice without persecution. Never have the people in this country been more free, if anything we are working toward the vision that our founding fathers laid out, not the opposite.
This is demonstrably not true. The second amendment is being challenged left and right. I have talked with people (Million Mom Marchers) who say they would allow their cars and homes to be searched if guns could be made illegel. This is absurd. With opinions like this, the 2nd amend. will be gone within 10 years (though I hope not). This in itself would set a precedent (a major idea in the US legal system). The 4th amendment (search and seizure) has been under attack for YEARS (because primarily of the draconian "war against drugs") and with one amendment down, it will be easier for this one to go as well (actually they will probably continue what they have been doing for a long time anyway, writing loopholes to the amendment such as ability to search on "suspicion of guilt").
However, more interesting and dangerous than the idea of a 1984 like world is the idea of a Brave New World, one where people volunteer to give up their rights and are complacent about abuses of their rights. This IMHO is where this country is going.
One of Microsoft's claims about C# is that it will allow "developers (to) access any hardware and software." C# provides "complete access to (the) underlying platform." At the same time they claim that this is a "web development language". Imagine , if you will, a poorly programmed piece of code that has vulnerablities in it. The kind of exploits that C# allows for (in concept) are on a different level entirely than the one's we see now. More access to hardware + a web language == A Bad Thing.
And I don't even have to mention that the evironment (at least initially) that a C# program would run in would be written by M$ (motto: 64k is enough bugs for everyone). Remote root exploits galore.
You use the example of the "water vapor car" and it's feasibility. Yes this technology is not availible, but similar "clean" technology IS available. Ferrari, for example, uses an engine in the F550 that spits out breathable air for exhaust. The amount of CO(2) and CO produced is negligible. However, this engine is not an "economically sound" invest for other car companies. They will still make their profits without liscensing new technology that will cost them more. IF they did, THEN car pollution from new cars would be almost non-existent. This is the kind of thing that would get the Naders of this world from whining, but it's not going to happen anytime soon (unfortunately).
Let me make a point at this juncture. Capitalism, communism, and socialism (at least in the way you talk about them) are ideals regarding the economy. They do not have to be tied to any particular governmental structure for support. Libertarian socialism for example would might be a society (based on voluntary association of course) that has little or no government, but as a society decides to share more of it's collective resources within itself and with it's neighbors. No one is forced to do so because this societal system would be implemented on a local scale and that anyone who wished change could very easily move to a different community where the social and economic structures were different.
I think your issue is with authoritarianism and the idea of control by very few over very many (the way it is in both capitalist and communist states alike).
I would like to point out that the Street Performer Protocol was originally produced (at least in this format) by renowned cryptographer Bruce Schneier (he wrote Applied Cryptography and runs the website www.counterpane.com). Here is a link to a paper that Schneier wrote on the subject.
Re:What's Really Important Here
on
Virtual War
·
· Score: 1
You correctly point out that the Iraqi's stopped aggressions years ago, but few people know that WE ARE STILL BOMBING THEM. At least once a week the US military strikes out against Iraqi targets, but the average American nevers hears about it because mainstream media decides that fluff news brings higher ratings.
As well, the US is maintaining an embargo against Iraqi. This prevents medicine and all sorts of essential items from reaching Iraqi (though, the US is holding food over there head in the "food for oil" deal, at least they are giving them a choice right, starvation or giving the US oil...). If the US thinks that this is somehow punishing the Iraqi gov't, THEY ARE WRONG. Who do you think is going without food, medicine, and adequate clothing, Saddam or some random Iraqi peasant. I can damn well guarantee that Saddam isn't the one dieing of malnutrition.
You don't know if it is a "one time pad" cipher. There is a very good chance that it is NOT in fact a one time pad cipher. One time pads are incredibly difficult to distribute. You have to get them to the recieving party for them to be any good. If these one time pads are somehow intercepted in transmission then they are no good. This is the reason that public-key cryptography was invented, to overcome what is known as the "key distrobution problem". Distributing new one time pads for each message sent is not efficient if you have an agent in the field whose identity you are trying to conceal is incredibly hard. Key based algorithms are MUCH easier implement in these kinds of situations (the only place I have heard that one-time pads are still used is the phone between the offices of the president of the US and Russia). It is necessary to use a pad only once (thus meaning you need many pads for many messages) because if a one time pad is used twice then both messages that use that pad can be broken. note: I am using letters like the reading station does not binary as you would use in the computer based equivalent.
While this law may hurt the average consumer at first ( because of restrictions placed on software they have been using for years ), in the long run it may help the open source community. For example: if Adobe refuses to let a certain publication review it's next generation of Photoshop the publication will still have a desire to reach a segment of the market interested in graphics software. They might instead turn around and review GIMP, giving the average consumer a better look at the tools created by the Open Source community. More press == more support == growth of open source. In essence, any missuses of this law by the commercial closed source sector only increases the market base of the open source sector. This is bad law that only help our cause.
After living for a couple years in a space station your muscles would be in completely different shape than they were on earth. Even if you worked out regularly there would still be muscle deterioration. It would be more difficult to perform any interesting acrobatics in that condition;).
Does anyone remember huge settlement over the design of the Pentium with DEC? Guess who Intel got many of their early ideas from. And even though DEC designed the 200 MHz bus, AMD still implemented it. True indeed that past attempts by AMD were failures, but I am looking now to the future. The 1.2 GHz chips I am refering to are ones put out by AMD's new plant, one that isn't yet producing commercial chips. These 1.2 GHz chips were put out as a test to see how well the Fab is working. And not only has the crystal lithography AMD uses been turning out speedy chips, but they are also successfully implementing copper interconnects (instead of tin). (This is something that both companies have talked about, but it hasn't yet shown up in Athlons or Coppermines)
AMD has had a 200 MHz FSB since they released the Athlon. Intel is only now getting around to it. I also heard recently that in AMD's Dresden fabrication plant that they are turning out 1.2 GHz chips while Intel is only/talking/ about getting over a GHz (w/o cooling). I think that Intel's star is falling and that the Athlon's superior performance over the P3 was no fluke. (Also that is one mighty unoriginal name)
Slashdot Mirror
If anything, you have just demonstrated the parent's point. Sure, LISP/ML/Prolog are different at their core from C/C++. But that is exactly the issue. IF you had taken a theory of languages course in a respectable BSCS program, you would know that the first two are functional program languages while the latter is a logic programming language. C/C++ and all other c-like languages on the other hand are imperative languages. IF you had the correct academic experience, you WOULD be able to understand why the first two mentioned paradigms exist and why they are so important (ever heard of lambda calculus???).
Jesus you are dumb. This isn't subjective. Take a look at the numbers (if you even read the article...) regarding the number of samples clipped by the power amp.
This is a very valid complaint (usually made by those within the industry). When you master each track so that they are all 'loud', you are essentially removing any difference in gain between these channels (also an objective measure). Thus, the music is percieved as 'better' for those people who have music systems incapable of producing the full frequency range at a relatively even sound pressure level. For those of us able to hear the difference, the music is far less dynamic than it should be.
"Looking suspicious" and "mouthing off" are not illegal last time I checked. Remember that little thing called the first amemdment, it protects both of these acts. His stated goal was to get arrested, true, but I am sure you can see the difference between getting arrested for "looking suspicious" and getting arrested while involved in civil disobedience for an issue he believes in (or maybe he doesn't, but there still is a difference).
PS. nobody forces anybody to buy acid. It not even something that you can force someone to get addicted to, seeing as it has not addictive properties.
What are you talking about, refusing to show ID and refusing to give up your 4th amendment rights (remember frisking is legal, but searchs of backpacks, etc are not without consent of the owner) are COMPLETELY LEGAL. Being beligerent to a police officer (or anyone for that matter) is a PROTECTED RIGHT. I can act however I damn please just so long as I don't break the law, which this journalist didn't. Being held just so you can be "checked on" is not legal. It constitutes arrest, which requires valid suspiscion of wrong doing (and no, "looking suspicious" does not count).
Pardon, does the fact that this country's constitution has a little clause called the First Amendment escape you??? What the journalist did was, admitedly, beligerent, BUT, it was not in any way illegal. He did not in fact have grenades in his pockets and based on the circumstances there was no reason to believe he had any. Thus, the excuse of arresting him for being armed was not valid. He was completely within his rights to tell the officer that he needed a search warrent to search his possesions (remeber that you can search his person, but not something like a backpack). This even holds true if he does use the word "fuck". Like I said, it was beligerent, but not against the law.
When you have a country where the police have the right to arrest someone for being beligerent without any other pretext (and then get to make up stuff after the fact to explain their motives (such as the rumor of acid)) it is called a POLICE STATE.
Please don't tell me that you can't see the difference between getting arrested for walking down the street and getting arrested for actually doing something AGAINST THE LAW???? If he was going to the protest, willing to get arrested, he intended to get arrested for engaging in civil disobedience, not arrested for no reason. Please, moderate the comment to which I am responding down. It is not insightful at all.
Libertarianism can allow for nearly any type of economic system around (except for those that propagate themselves through authoritarian systems, eg governmental communism and welfare capitalism). Libertarianism _only_ refers to the government's role in a person's life. This is a distinction that I have not seen one poster make yet.
There are many libertarians who believe in laisser-faire capitalism for the economic system to follow, but there are those who would rather cooperate and form what is in essence a socialist society. Because the fundamental tenets of libertarianism demand that participation in this society be voluntary, we do not fall into the same traps as we do with governmental socialism (namely having the system turn into a dictatorship, something that is remarkably close to facism, which as we all know was defined by it's creator, Benito Mussolini, as governmental capitalism).
So please, before anyone tries to claim that libertarianism is anything BUT lack of governmental intervention, please reconsider your arguements.
Anarchism is entirely valid. All is means is lack of hierarchical gov't. It is the state that humans come from and if we were to go BACK to it (this does not mean going back to living in caves and becoming luddites) then many of our problems would be solved. To clarify my point: if all large institutions (that are NOT the same as people) whether governmental or corporate were either abolished (voluntarily, this would have to be a popular revolution) or put in their place (that is, recognizing that these institutions do not have the same rights as people seeing as they are not in fact people) then society would flourish in general. Society is not built upon anarchy.
That is in fact a false statement. Society _originiated_ in a state of anarchy (ie people voluntarily cooperating as opposed to having a leader tell them what to do).
Also let me clarify the idea of violence not including the idea of property damage. There was once an anarchist named Pierre Joseph Proudhon who said "property is theft, property is freedom, property is impossible". Essentially this means that without _personnal_ property we cannot be individuals (hence the idea of forced communal property as practiced be supporters of governmental communism, but not voluntary communism). However, such ideas as corporate property (that property which is derived from the sweat and blood of the workers), property that is not in fact controlled by the workers, is theft. The corporate bosses (or government) did not produce this property hence it is not theirs to claim that it's destruction is violating their rights (hence the quote from tao.ca that you took out of context). This sort of property is "impossible" because the corporate "bosses" did not make it and their control over this property is illusury (because it is not theirs to control).
Sorry to shock you, but the United States has NEVER been a pure democracy. It is and always has been a republic. It most certainly is not a "government of the people" because not everyone has equal representation. I am sure there are many libertarians (me included) or other non Republicrats who post here will end up voting for a candidate in the upcoming presidential elections who will not get elected (eg Harry Browne or Ralph Nader). This means that each of us is not equally "represented", we are represented by who the majority has elected (ie tyranny of the majority).
As well, the current governmental system would have the citizens of this country believe that there are only two choices for president (or any other office), Democrat or Republican. Most people choose one or the other because that person is the "lesser of two evils". Most people cannot imagine voting for someone who is not a member of two major parties.
Second, our government is doing fine. People say we are moving away from the Bill of Rights as if right after it was signed we were all freely getting high, having sex in every flavor, reading whatever we wanted, and worshiping the god(s) or object of our choice without persecution. Never have the people in this country been more free, if anything we are working toward the vision that our founding fathers laid out, not the opposite.
This is demonstrably not true. The second amendment is being challenged left and right. I have talked with people (Million Mom Marchers) who say they would allow their cars and homes to be searched if guns could be made illegel. This is absurd. With opinions like this, the 2nd amend. will be gone within 10 years (though I hope not). This in itself would set a precedent (a major idea in the US legal system). The 4th amendment (search and seizure) has been under attack for YEARS (because primarily of the draconian "war against drugs") and with one amendment down, it will be easier for this one to go as well (actually they will probably continue what they have been doing for a long time anyway, writing loopholes to the amendment such as ability to search on "suspicion of guilt").
However, more interesting and dangerous than the idea of a 1984 like world is the idea of a Brave New World, one where people volunteer to give up their rights and are complacent about abuses of their rights. This IMHO is where this country is going.
One of Microsoft's claims about C# is that it will allow "developers (to) access any hardware and software." C# provides "complete access to (the) underlying platform." At the same time they claim that this is a "web development language". Imagine , if you will, a poorly programmed piece of code that has vulnerablities in it. The kind of exploits that C# allows for (in concept) are on a different level entirely than the one's we see now. More access to hardware + a web language == A Bad Thing.
And I don't even have to mention that the evironment (at least initially) that a C# program would run in would be written by M$ (motto: 64k is enough bugs for everyone). Remote root exploits galore.
You use the example of the "water vapor car" and it's feasibility. Yes this technology is not availible, but similar "clean" technology IS available. Ferrari, for example, uses an engine in the F550 that spits out breathable air for exhaust. The amount of CO(2) and CO produced is negligible. However, this engine is not an "economically sound" invest for other car companies. They will still make their profits without liscensing new technology that will cost them more. IF they did, THEN car pollution from new cars would be almost non-existent. This is the kind of thing that would get the Naders of this world from whining, but it's not going to happen anytime soon (unfortunately).
Let me make a point at this juncture. Capitalism, communism, and socialism (at least in the way you talk about them) are ideals regarding the economy. They do not have to be tied to any particular governmental structure for support. Libertarian socialism for example would might be a society (based on voluntary association of course) that has little or no government, but as a society decides to share more of it's collective resources within itself and with it's neighbors. No one is forced to do so because this societal system would be implemented on a local scale and that anyone who wished change could very easily move to a different community where the social and economic structures were different.
I think your issue is with authoritarianism and the idea of control by very few over very many (the way it is in both capitalist and communist states alike).
I would like to point out that the Street Performer Protocol was originally produced (at least in this format) by renowned cryptographer Bruce Schneier (he wrote Applied Cryptography and runs the website www.counterpane.com). Here is a link to a paper that Schneier wrote on the subject.
You correctly point out that the Iraqi's stopped aggressions years ago, but few people know that WE ARE STILL BOMBING THEM. At least once a week the US military strikes out against Iraqi targets, but the average American nevers hears about it because mainstream media decides that fluff news brings higher ratings.
As well, the US is maintaining an embargo against Iraqi. This prevents medicine and all sorts of essential items from reaching Iraqi (though, the US is holding food over there head in the "food for oil" deal, at least they are giving them a choice right, starvation or giving the US oil...). If the US thinks that this is somehow punishing the Iraqi gov't, THEY ARE WRONG. Who do you think is going without food, medicine, and adequate clothing, Saddam or some random Iraqi peasant. I can damn well guarantee that Saddam isn't the one dieing of malnutrition.
You don't know if it is a "one time pad" cipher. There is a very good chance that it is NOT in fact a one time pad cipher. One time pads are incredibly difficult to distribute. You have to get them to the recieving party for them to be any good. If these one time pads are somehow intercepted in transmission then they are no good. This is the reason that public-key cryptography was invented, to overcome what is known as the "key distrobution problem". Distributing new one time pads for each message sent is not efficient if you have an agent in the field whose identity you are trying to conceal is incredibly hard. Key based algorithms are MUCH easier implement in these kinds of situations (the only place I have heard that one-time pads are still used is the phone between the offices of the president of the US and Russia). It is necessary to use a pad only once (thus meaning you need many pads for many messages) because if a one time pad is used twice then both messages that use that pad can be broken. note: I am using letters like the reading station does not binary as you would use in the computer based equivalent.
While this law may hurt the average consumer at first ( because of restrictions placed on software they have been using for years ), in the long run it may help the open source community. For example: if Adobe refuses to let a certain publication review it's next generation of Photoshop the publication will still have a desire to reach a segment of the market interested in graphics software. They might instead turn around and review GIMP, giving the average consumer a better look at the tools created by the Open Source community. More press == more support == growth of open source. In essence, any missuses of this law by the commercial closed source sector only increases the market base of the open source sector. This is bad law that only help our cause.
After living for a couple years in a space station your muscles would be in completely different shape than they were on earth. Even if you worked out regularly there would still be muscle deterioration. It would be more difficult to perform any interesting acrobatics in that condition ;).
Does anyone remember huge settlement over the design of the Pentium with DEC? Guess who Intel got many of their early ideas from. And even though DEC designed the 200 MHz bus, AMD still implemented it. True indeed that past attempts by AMD were failures, but I am looking now to the future. The 1.2 GHz chips I am refering to are ones put out by AMD's new plant, one that isn't yet producing commercial chips. These 1.2 GHz chips were put out as a test to see how well the Fab is working. And not only has the crystal lithography AMD uses been turning out speedy chips, but they are also successfully implementing copper interconnects (instead of tin). (This is something that both companies have talked about, but it hasn't yet shown up in Athlons or Coppermines)
AMD has had a 200 MHz FSB since they released the Athlon. Intel is only now getting around to it. I also heard recently that in AMD's Dresden fabrication plant that they are turning out 1.2 GHz chips while Intel is only /talking/ about getting over a GHz (w/o cooling). I think that Intel's star is falling and that the Athlon's superior performance over the P3 was no fluke. (Also that is one mighty unoriginal name)