Ontogeny reciprocates phylogeny. This is a simple concept. The question of how evolution caused the caterpillar to change into the butterfly is misleading. Evolution reinforced a "staged" lifecycle. There were probably innumerable different ways caterpillars ended their lifecycles in the past. Turns out, from a genetic survival standpoint, that this lightweight highly mobile stage (butterfly) was more optimal than staying a slug. As the genetic line was pruned, it became an energy storage life stage (caterpillar). This is how evolution works. Speciation is a rather hot topic to try and demonstrate evolution as a fact by pointing out changes within a single human generation.
P.S. Even armed with my knowledge, I don't believe in evolution. Whoops, I went and said something flamey.
If I write something on my blog, for example, and decide not to cover it with the general copyright notice, I can simply say that it is in the public domain and be done with it.
You have to make a legally traceable announcement to this effect. Preferably some type of documentation. If your children want to sue for infringement in the future, they will attempt to invalidate any passing comments made (or may have made, there's the rub) on a blog. Who knows if that's legally binding?
I do not need permission from Creative Commons, nor do I need to mention Creative Commons or anything else. It's in the public domain by my personally allowing it to be so. This is my right!
Dvorak, without specifically releasing it, your right isn't asserted. Listen up, shouting I MAKE HARRY POTTER PUBLIC DOMAIN!!! results in no legal consequence. NO SURPRISES THERE. CC helps you assert this right, idiot. Apparently, in America you need to properly cross your T's to even RELEASE a work into PD.
The Elements of Style are still sold in the High School bookstore, where I first encountered it. Strunk and White is part of the American High School Honors English curriculum. Once you master the basics, you are exposed to the commentaries on style.
Strunk and White was an American High School staple 15 years ago and still is today.
P.S. How is the parent insightful when it doesnt contain any facts?
[quote]If the President of the United States, the Governor of California, and various other politicians can hold political office regardless of what they did in their past (I won't even go into the difference between actually *doing* something illegal and just writing about it), then there should be no reason why this should even be a minor concern for Cohen or BitTorrent.[/quote] Hipocrisy. I believe it is WRONG that comments, and more importantly actions, made by the President or anyone else can be ignored. This is often the spin on/., but in the case of a successful technologist it's somehow different? I dont think so. It happened and everyone is responsible for everything they do.
To what end is he "responsible" for these comments? It may cost him dearly because it appears that his goals may have changed, but his core beliefs have not. He should be owning up to the fact that this looks badly and how his views contrast what they used to be.
This is a difficult path to take after you've become scared that your past was dug up and are furiously trying to cover your ass, rather than simply repairing situation.
I don't judge people by their spelling. I judge them by the quality of their communicated thoughts. Stating that your intelligence is measured by the quality of your words, to random Joe is a problem with Joe's perception of the world. The concept of shared perfect communication didn't survive the century. Remember back when every topic was taboo? It's easy to communicate about how scandalous something is, when you can't use any other word in print. Let it go.
If you can't understand someone, isn't it worth the effort, to ask them to restate? Communication can be a 1 way street, but is not always so. Communication is good. (Purposefully attempting to clutter real communication with noise is bad.)
Trying to enforce perfect communication (as opposed to "good enuf"), is a form of ego masturbation. I have not read or heard anything that would even START to convince me otherwise.
3) - In california and probably thousands of places around your state, there are Cash checking "businesses". Everything from the storefront that says "Cash Checks Here" to the liquor store guy who is used to dealing with illegal aliens. #3 is the only "difficulty" not worth mentioning, if you live in CA, at the cost of 10-15%.
I disagree. The aggregate reasons to have an EASY AC post possibility does not appear more attractive than an equally ethical approach (req registration that's not effective) which will result in lesser (albeit the same) consequences.
I will trade the inconvenience of ppl wishing to post anonymously (which they can still do, inconveniently) to the benefit of the community signal/noise. Perhaps it's a personal choice or a matter of degree.
Have you ever tried to run a board for more than 6 months? Adding ANY barrier (even looking up the aforementioned login/pass of a generic ACuser) to attempting to post anonymously reduces noise (trolling) signifigantly, over time, if not immediately. The solution isn't supposed to be 100% effective; nothing has ever proven to be 100% effective, in regards to public network-accessible message boards AFAIK.
Discounting ideas simply because of anonymity is intellectually lazy.
Filtering internet trolls on a case-by-case basis is not practical. Forcing registration is a proactive change that is not limiting in any way. How is that lazy?
You are missing the point. Terraforming is an economically and logistically horrible idea. If you can travel to a planet, you're using the planet as an anchor to set up a refueling station on an planetoid or otherwise mobile orbiting station. You dont want to store supplies or even a civilization on the planet, where you're having to write off most of what is sent there because of the amount of energy required to retrieve it from gravity well (massive for most outer planets) is prohibitive.
What the article doesnt take into account, is that the energy required to putter us around the solar system is going to make the energy required to pull out of a gravity well, look trivial.
Given current science and not relying on faith that a "star trek warp drive" will be invented, the practicality of terraforming just isn't there. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.
The lead-time required to "authorize" any file I want to put up (how are they going to circumvent basic encrypted files named.jpg?) will nullify any technical advances that will make it 10%+ faster much less 20 or 30 over the same network, namely the internet at large.
Why would I use this again? Oh yeah, MAYBE POSSIBLY because small underused networks are sometimes easier to search or seed. Avalanche should fit this model nicely since the developers at MS haven't come up with any earth-shatteringly ingenious ways to overcome problems that OSS has been dealing with for years. I don't believe MS has anything to add with Avalanche.
Luke is really the balance. Yoda makes the same choice with Luke that he did with Anakin (regarding Padame), telling him to let them die as it is the way of things. Luke has feelings for his friends, when they are in danger and will not heed the advice (neither did Anakin). Jedi are typically (inhumanly) unfeeling. Jedi dont wear black, but Luke does. Jedi dont use dark force powers, but Luke does. Anakin was destined to BRING balance to the force...and he did, in the form of Luke.
The ability to change the interface from easy-to-learn to easy-to-use is called "good design" and is altogether irrelevant to how software should come out-of-the-box. You recognize the difference. Being able to move rooms in a house is often difficult in many ways, which is probably why we see the ability to change the interface so infrequently. Too many software developers think that because it's effective design, it's going to become familiar enough. This is what the house metaphor was trying to illustrate. It's laughable.
Re:Congratulations are in order!
on
A Decade of PHP
·
· Score: 1
In 1999 when I first started gathering talent for a web hosting company (in lieu of a PHP position, which I found a month later), I met set a meeting with a programmer named...John in a San Jose Embassy Suites. Upon hearing, the important detail; we would be using PHP in lieu of Perl, he promptly called me crazy and informed me he wouldn't be wasting his time considering working with someone who was trying to use PHP(PHP/FI at the time). Nice not working with ya John.
I have had plenty of special moments I wouldn't mind having distributed on the internet "by accident"...hell I'm interested in making lots of recordings with these things. Specifically, I'm interested in hacks to wipe the memory for multiple recordings!
Comparing OSS to commercial software is not the same as deciding whether or not to access a new method of communication. Europe has always QUICKLY adopted any new form of communication. Can't argue that.
Your comment is out-of-place.
To be fair, if the roles were reversed in some bizarro world, where the open source nature of software had dominated the fledgling decades of computing and then closed-source commercial software came along saying "look at our superior end-product", you might say, "Hey, let's not be so hasty to promote a new model." It does not escape many, that the words 'commercial software' and 'OSS' cause irrational fervor.
There is no need to wait and do an assessment, there are plenty of case studies you can use for an assessment now.
For countries who have been around many hundreds of years longer than the US, 10 years is a ridiculously short term. OSS has simply not demonstrated it's the smart play. I think FOSS is a good thing(tm), but you can't seriously think that it's proven itself as a superior infrastructure model without more data (another 2 decades at least). The fact that OSS is being accepted by the US government (who has consistently made sensational short term, bad long term, decisions) should set off alarm bells. Yes that's a dig at the US gov, but it's also the pattern.
I agree that this is no Linus', nay anyone's place to patch for. If your hardware configuration includes a crytography vulnerability because of a lack of consideration in design, it is not a software developer's place to make the software take this into account and work around it. Maybe it's within their ability; but at what cost? That's their decision and Linus doesn't see the emergency for a theoretical vulnerability that is dependent on a crappy marketing scheme (HT). Yes, you should make a workaround if it's a valid vulnerability and enough ppl use something as primitive as HT (check). Long term...Who cares?
And a door that is shut but isn't airtight, is technically still open? Do you actually think that was insightful?
Ex: Election data encrypted and transmitted. You intercept it. If you the quickest you can decrypt, alter, re-encrypt and resend it, is 100 years after that election is concluded, how is it different from the algorithm being "uncrackable"?
I dont apply a time constraint to the usefulness algorithm alone, when thinking about security, I also have to apply it to the useful lifespan of the data. As far as I can tell, ppl want to keep their email addresses longer than their specific residences or even credit card numbers (in the U.S.) and they are frequently doing so. What's useful enough to want to protect longer than a couple thousand years?
The article implies that if you make your keys long enough, the computational advancement of machines will not endanger your data for a couple decades for CERTAIN...unless someone breaks modern mathematical factoring, at which time you can switch to something different like a lead safe.
Linux went so far as to mimic the inadequacies of SysV (in terms of POSIX incompatibility). Linux started as more than a reverse engineered Unix, it was a clone. If I study protocols I'm legally allowed to and can design an interoperable system, I'm reverse engineering. If I get ahold of the code (or a poor copy...like POSIX) and study the protocols (as well as the implementation it was based on) then implement it, I'm copying. Arguing about software ethics is about METHODOLOGY (and to an extent intent). Linux was made to be a free Unix platform, not just a free POSIX implementation.
Although my carefactor is near 0, I infer that Tridge was reverse engineering BK through client messaging to make his own server network...that McVoy is terrified he might actually make interoperable with his own and which he cant afford to stop. Imagine your distributed network starts reporting data from new servers after you've sold several hundred copies of the client. Even the idea that you block those servers wouldn't necessarily be practical given the number of trees and patches flying around or the danger in forcing a functional rogue network to compete. McVoy is pissed because he proved that BK was best through hard work and a lot of harassment...and now someone has recognized that he was right, and is going to clone it. I think I've seen this before.
I am part of the tech crew for the Glory of Christmas show this year, presented at the Crystal Cathedral. http://www.crystalcathedral.org/
You can see my name in the program this year under Flight Operators (we fly the angels). It pays per show with a very flexible schedule. As a perk I get to hang out with the Angels, dancers, etc and am exempt from the Devotions and other religious cermonials. I am a Lutheran and not big on churches...especially money-centric evangelist churches.
Re:Smackdown XIV counting down at 3
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
It is possible to withdraw and win.
VERY well said. You haven't withdrawn because you don't feel that you would be leaving in a logically superior position. Fair enough. The whole descent into icelandic was a bit immature at best, but I knew you had more to say.
The simple act of linking adds no weight to the argument. I see no reason to link to any of your comments, as they are all equally devoid of facts or logical thought, insofar as reality and history are concerned. I still think everything you know about manufacturing either came from what you read in modern fiction or from one plant that you saw pictures of. Stating or restating relevant facts or even opionions, is usually more efficient than linking. I don't go around stating facts as if I originated them, but I do use them to anchor my views.
I'm sure you're very clever. Now for God's sake shut up.
Slashdot Mirror
Ontogeny reciprocates phylogeny. This is a simple concept. The question of how evolution caused the caterpillar to change into the butterfly is misleading. Evolution reinforced a "staged" lifecycle. There were probably innumerable different ways caterpillars ended their lifecycles in the past. Turns out, from a genetic survival standpoint, that this lightweight highly mobile stage (butterfly) was more optimal than staying a slug. As the genetic line was pruned, it became an energy storage life stage (caterpillar). This is how evolution works. Speciation is a rather hot topic to try and demonstrate evolution as a fact by pointing out changes within a single human generation.
P.S. Even armed with my knowledge, I don't believe in evolution. Whoops, I went and said something flamey.
If I write something on my blog, for example, and decide not to cover it with the general copyright notice, I can simply say that it is in the public domain and be done with it.
You have to make a legally traceable announcement to this effect. Preferably some type of documentation. If your children want to sue for infringement in the future, they will attempt to invalidate any passing comments made (or may have made, there's the rub) on a blog. Who knows if that's legally binding?
I do not need permission from Creative Commons, nor do I need to mention Creative Commons or anything else. It's in the public domain by my personally allowing it to be so. This is my right!
Dvorak, without specifically releasing it, your right isn't asserted. Listen up, shouting I MAKE HARRY POTTER PUBLIC DOMAIN!!! results in no legal consequence. NO SURPRISES THERE. CC helps you assert this right, idiot. Apparently, in America you need to properly cross your T's to even RELEASE a work into PD.
The Elements of Style are still sold in the High School bookstore, where I first encountered it. Strunk and White is part of the American High School Honors English curriculum. Once you master the basics, you are exposed to the commentaries on style.
Strunk and White was an American High School staple 15 years ago and still is today.
P.S.
How is the parent insightful when it doesnt contain any facts?
[quote]If the President of the United States, the Governor of California, and various other politicians can hold political office regardless of what they did in their past (I won't even go into the difference between actually *doing* something illegal and just writing about it), then there should be no reason why this should even be a minor concern for Cohen or BitTorrent.[/quote] /., but in the case of a successful technologist it's somehow different? I dont think so. It happened and everyone is responsible for everything they do.
Hipocrisy. I believe it is WRONG that comments, and more importantly actions, made by the President or anyone else can be ignored. This is often the spin on
To what end is he "responsible" for these comments? It may cost him dearly because it appears that his goals may have changed, but his core beliefs have not. He should be owning up to the fact that this looks badly and how his views contrast what they used to be.
This is a difficult path to take after you've become scared that your past was dug up and are furiously trying to cover your ass, rather than simply repairing situation.
I don't judge people by their spelling. I judge them by the quality of their communicated thoughts. Stating that your intelligence is measured by the quality of your words, to random Joe is a problem with Joe's perception of the world. The concept of shared perfect communication didn't survive the century. Remember back when every topic was taboo? It's easy to communicate about how scandalous something is, when you can't use any other word in print. Let it go.
If you can't understand someone, isn't it worth the effort, to ask them to restate? Communication can be a 1 way street, but is not always so. Communication is good. (Purposefully attempting to clutter real communication with noise is bad.)
Trying to enforce perfect communication (as opposed to "good enuf"), is a form of ego masturbation. I have not read or heard anything that would even START to convince me otherwise.
3) - In california and probably thousands of places around your state, there are Cash checking "businesses". Everything from the storefront that says "Cash Checks Here" to the liquor store guy who is used to dealing with illegal aliens. #3 is the only "difficulty" not worth mentioning, if you live in CA, at the cost of 10-15%.
I disagree. The aggregate reasons to have an EASY AC post possibility does not appear more attractive than an equally ethical approach (req registration that's not effective) which will result in lesser (albeit the same) consequences.
I will trade the inconvenience of ppl wishing to post anonymously (which they can still do, inconveniently) to the benefit of the community signal/noise. Perhaps it's a personal choice or a matter of degree.
Have you ever tried to run a board for more than 6 months? Adding ANY barrier (even looking up the aforementioned login/pass of a generic ACuser) to attempting to post anonymously reduces noise (trolling) signifigantly, over time, if not immediately. The solution isn't supposed to be 100% effective; nothing has ever proven to be 100% effective, in regards to public network-accessible message boards AFAIK.
Mars' planetary axis problems make the idea of martian terraforming a joke. Please stop referring to Mars. Start thinking Venus.
Which would then need to be terraformed.
Um no.
You are missing the point. Terraforming is an economically and logistically horrible idea. If you can travel to a planet, you're using the planet as an anchor to set up a refueling station on an planetoid or otherwise mobile orbiting station. You dont want to store supplies or even a civilization on the planet, where you're having to write off most of what is sent there because of the amount of energy required to retrieve it from gravity well (massive for most outer planets) is prohibitive.
What the article doesnt take into account, is that the energy required to putter us around the solar system is going to make the energy required to pull out of a gravity well, look trivial.
Given current science and not relying on faith that a "star trek warp drive" will be invented, the practicality of terraforming just isn't there. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.
The lead-time required to "authorize" any file I want to put up (how are they going to circumvent basic encrypted files named .jpg?) will nullify any technical advances that will make it 10%+ faster much less 20 or 30 over the same network, namely the internet at large.
Why would I use this again?
Oh yeah, MAYBE POSSIBLY because small underused networks are sometimes easier to search or seed. Avalanche should fit this model nicely since the developers at MS haven't come up with any earth-shatteringly ingenious ways to overcome problems that OSS has been dealing with for years. I don't believe MS has anything to add with Avalanche.
Fark.com is a classic example of why it's a *good idea* to open new windows. I'm really surprised /. doesn't do this.
Luke is really the balance. Yoda makes the same choice with Luke that he did with Anakin (regarding Padame), telling him to let them die as it is the way of things. Luke has feelings for his friends, when they are in danger and will not heed the advice (neither did Anakin). Jedi are typically (inhumanly) unfeeling. Jedi dont wear black, but Luke does. Jedi dont use dark force powers, but Luke does. Anakin was destined to BRING balance to the force...and he did, in the form of Luke.
The ability to change the interface from easy-to-learn to easy-to-use is called "good design" and is altogether irrelevant to how software should come out-of-the-box. You recognize the difference. Being able to move rooms in a house is often difficult in many ways, which is probably why we see the ability to change the interface so infrequently. Too many software developers think that because it's effective design, it's going to become familiar enough. This is what the house metaphor was trying to illustrate. It's laughable.
In 1999 when I first started gathering talent for a web hosting company (in lieu of a PHP position, which I found a month later), I met set a meeting with a programmer named...John in a San Jose Embassy Suites. Upon hearing, the important detail; we would be using PHP in lieu of Perl, he promptly called me crazy and informed me he wouldn't be wasting his time considering working with someone who was trying to use PHP(PHP/FI at the time). Nice not working with ya John.
I have had plenty of special moments I wouldn't mind having distributed on the internet "by accident"...hell I'm interested in making lots of recordings with these things. Specifically, I'm interested in hacks to wipe the memory for multiple recordings!
Why would it apply to the internet?
Comparing OSS to commercial software is not the same as deciding whether or not to access a new method of communication. Europe has always QUICKLY adopted any new form of communication. Can't argue that.
Your comment is out-of-place.
To be fair, if the roles were reversed in some bizarro world, where the open source nature of software had dominated the fledgling decades of computing and then closed-source commercial software came along saying "look at our superior end-product", you might say, "Hey, let's not be so hasty to promote a new model." It does not escape many, that the words 'commercial software' and 'OSS' cause irrational fervor.
For countries who have been around many hundreds of years longer than the US, 10 years is a ridiculously short term. OSS has simply not demonstrated it's the smart play. I think FOSS is a good thing(tm), but you can't seriously think that it's proven itself as a superior infrastructure model without more data (another 2 decades at least). The fact that OSS is being accepted by the US government (who has consistently made sensational short term, bad long term, decisions) should set off alarm bells. Yes that's a dig at the US gov, but it's also the pattern.
I agree that this is no Linus', nay anyone's place to patch for. If your hardware configuration includes a crytography vulnerability because of a lack of consideration in design, it is not a software developer's place to make the software take this into account and work around it. Maybe it's within their ability; but at what cost? That's their decision and Linus doesn't see the emergency for a theoretical vulnerability that is dependent on a crappy marketing scheme (HT). Yes, you should make a workaround if it's a valid vulnerability and enough ppl use something as primitive as HT (check). Long term...Who cares?
To revise, "It's best not to risk your life by using the internet if a regime is that oppressive."
Trolling is easy; try to keep it down by thinking.
And a door that is shut but isn't airtight, is technically still open? Do you actually think that was insightful?
Ex: Election data encrypted and transmitted. You intercept it. If you the quickest you can decrypt, alter, re-encrypt and resend it, is 100 years after that election is concluded, how is it different from the algorithm being "uncrackable"?
I dont apply a time constraint to the usefulness algorithm alone, when thinking about security, I also have to apply it to the useful lifespan of the data. As far as I can tell, ppl want to keep their email addresses longer than their specific residences or even credit card numbers (in the U.S.) and they are frequently doing so. What's useful enough to want to protect longer than a couple thousand years?
The article implies that if you make your keys long enough, the computational advancement of machines will not endanger your data for a couple decades for CERTAIN...unless someone breaks modern mathematical factoring, at which time you can switch to something different like a lead safe.
Linux went so far as to mimic the inadequacies of SysV (in terms of POSIX incompatibility). Linux started as more than a reverse engineered Unix, it was a clone. If I study protocols I'm legally allowed to and can design an interoperable system, I'm reverse engineering. If I get ahold of the code (or a poor copy...like POSIX) and study the protocols (as well as the implementation it was based on) then implement it, I'm copying. Arguing about software ethics is about METHODOLOGY (and to an extent intent). Linux was made to be a free Unix platform, not just a free POSIX implementation.
Although my carefactor is near 0, I infer that Tridge was reverse engineering BK through client messaging to make his own server network...that McVoy is terrified he might actually make interoperable with his own and which he cant afford to stop. Imagine your distributed network starts reporting data from new servers after you've sold several hundred copies of the client. Even the idea that you block those servers wouldn't necessarily be practical given the number of trees and patches flying around or the danger in forcing a functional rogue network to compete. McVoy is pissed because he proved that BK was best through hard work and a lot of harassment...and now someone has recognized that he was right, and is going to clone it. I think I've seen this before.
But that's just my take.
I am part of the tech crew for the Glory of Christmas show this year, presented at the Crystal Cathedral. http://www.crystalcathedral.org/
You can see my name in the program this year under Flight Operators (we fly the angels). It pays per show with a very flexible schedule. As a perk I get to hang out with the Angels, dancers, etc and am exempt from the Devotions and other religious cermonials. I am a Lutheran and not big on churches...especially money-centric evangelist churches.
The simple act of linking adds no weight to the argument. I see no reason to link to any of your comments, as they are all equally devoid of facts or logical thought, insofar as reality and history are concerned. I still think everything you know about manufacturing either came from what you read in modern fiction or from one plant that you saw pictures of. Stating or restating relevant facts or even opionions, is usually more efficient than linking. I don't go around stating facts as if I originated them, but I do use them to anchor my views.
I'm sure you're very clever. Now for God's sake shut up.