The problem with thinking that we can go to other planets if run out of space or resources here is that our growth is exponential. More people means that the same population growth rate results in a larger increase in population.
Suppose there is a limit L to some critical resource used by people. Let's say arable land. At some time t we will be using.5*L acres of land. Then at some time in the future t+dt world population doubles, and we are using L acres of land. There is no more land available. So, we decide to move to another planet and start using its arable land. Let's assume such an earth like planet exists, along with a mass teleportation device so that we can get there in a reasonable amount of time. Even under those dubious assumptions, in dt years population will double again. Oops, we are using 2L acres of land. That entire world was just consumed. Now we need 2 more earth like planets, and 2 more teleportation devices. The cycle continues, as long as our population growth is positive.
If there are limits on resources, population growth is the real problem.
TFA refers to a previous blog entry, which mostly explains things. To summarize: the people who are supposed to be in charge have mostly resigned or are MIA. The remaining leadership isn't doing things like updating the website, etc - the weekly newsletter hasn't been published in months. The real crises is that they didn't file routine paperwork with the state, which puts the legal status of the gentoo foundation in jeopardy. No one explained why to the community, or said much of anything. So, he's going to get the legal matters cleared up and find new people to be in charge.
My point is that the government already mandates identification. You already need a driver's license to get on an airplane or enter a federal building. Maybe that's a bad thing. Maybe the security features are a waste of money. But there's really no new attack on civil liberties here. Also, I think I'm reading the quote differently than you. The meaning I got was "Because driver's licenses are ids (and they already are) we should make them hard to counterfeit." The whole point is that people try to fake ids - that's why they are doing this.
I honestly don't understand what the problem is. There seems to be a hysterical "Show me your papers! OMG 1984!" knee jerk reaction whenever federal laws about driver's licenses are discussed. Why? Licenses exist in all states already. The set of things that licenses are required for is not changing. The states are just agreeing to make their licenses more similar. What's wrong with that?
The precinct in which this occurred had hand counted paper ballots (according to TFA). Actually, the entire state voted with paper ballots. A minority of towns counted the paper ballots with scanners. But, I reapeat: the scanners weren't even used in this precinct. This means that diebold systems aren't at fault for those lost votes and that verification of the results across the entire state is possible with a recount by hand.
This is a bad policy - no question - but I don't think it is the conscious goal of almost anyone in government to make people afraid, and therefore submissive. It seems to me that President Bush, for instance, genuinely believes what he says about "the terrorists". The fact that he knows things with his guts and then makes his brain go along makes for terrible policy, but I'm not quite ready to put on my tin foil hat and buy into this conspiracy.
I came away unclear about what actually happened. Just exactly what is the unmetered file download area? Did they just decide to stop being a mirror for openoffice? Are they doing something more malicious? If all that was done was some company stopped mirroring an open source project because they are launching a competitor, I fail to see what is remotely surprising about that.
I would like to see a companion site, wikimath or some such...
They already do this for quotations and books not under copyright. I often see wikipedia pages with a box that says something like, "Wikisource has original text related to this article: ". However, those boxes tend to show up at the bottom of the page in a section for links, which may limit how much they get noticed.
A wikimedia project for proofs would be great, especially if the related wikipedia articles make the links there more obvious.
Also, the actual changes to the article are not really that bad. Roughly half the changes are from statements like "X is true" to statements like "X is alleged." The other half - two or three sentences added and one removed - do show a bit more bias. But come on, this is one edit from 2005 that was somewhat of an NPOV violation. I'd be much more inclined to put on my tin foil hat if there was evidence of repeated edits, or if the article today had a hawkish slant.
The survey you link to doesn't support your claim about 61% of Americans not caring about positions. The survey asked participants if they think of themselves as democrat, republican, or independent. If a party was given, they were asked if they are a strong or not very strong democrat/republican. If instead of naming a party, they said they were independent, they were asked if they lean towards a party. The most recent results are: 10% independent, 29% leaning independent, 28% weak partisan, 33% strong partisan.
What I take away from the data is that two thirds of the country doesn't identify strongly with either party. I don't think it says anything about voters being mindless. Even for the third of people who are strong democrats or republicans, it is still very possible that those people considered the issues and realized that they strongly agree with whichever party. Voter motivation is an interesting question, but it is not addressed in that survey.
I also disagree with your comments on the primary process. I don't have any research to back this up, but it seems like common sense to say that voters in primaries and caucuses tend to be some of the most politically savvy citizens. Your mindless voters that are getting reeled in don't go to caucuses and don't watch primary debates.
To sum up, I think that Americans take their votes seriously and are not mindless.
The asset purchase agreement says that Novell sold to Santa Cruz "all rights and ownership of UNIX... including source code . .., such assets to include without limitation" a long list of specific products.
What the APA says that was left out of TFA:
Seller will sell, convey, transfer, assign and deliver to Buyer and Buyer will purchase and acquire from Seller on the Closing Date (as defined in Section 1.7), all of Seller's right, title and interest in and to the assets and properties of Seller relating to the Business (collectively the Assets") identified on Schedule 1.1 (a) hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Assets to be so purchased shall not include those assets (the Excluded Assets") set forth on Schedule 1.1 (b)
Schedule 1.1 (a) is where TFA is quoting from saying that SCO gets all the rights. But if you look ahead to Schedule 1.1 (b) (the list of assets not sold) there is this:
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare. Game. Set. Match.
I read the article, and it scared me a little because it sounds like there is a chance for SCO to appeal on the grounds that a jury should have decided exactly what the APA meant. I haven't read the full text of the APA and I don't remember the details from back when groklaw dissected it, but TFA manages to find quotes from it that seem contradictory. The article title is indeed inflammatory, and SCO's infringement claims certainly are bogus. My concern is SCO could use this to draw everything out still longer. Of course, there is the issue of them being bankrupt and bleeding the remaining assets they have, but it would be a damn shame if there was the appearance of SCO having any claim at all, especially if they go out of business before they can be proven wrong.
Terrorists crossing over from Mexico gets brought up a lot, but there haven't ever been any terrorists in this country (at least that I know of) that came over from Mexico. It seems really odd to me too. Why doesn't Al-Qaeda just send lots terrorists over the Mexican border? They don't have to target huge things once they are in this country either. All they really have to do is get a steady stream of people over the border and then have them disperse all over the country and start targeting infrastructure. Think of how much damage one person could do cutting power lines, attacking water treatment plants, blowing up power stations, bombing bridges, etc. There are so many things that could be targeted easily, and it is so easy to get into this country. So why isn't it happening?
It seems you need to use a really abysmal password for google to find the hash.
Here are a few examples of passwords you should not use that google does not find hashes of (at least as of now(11/20/07)):
...businesses are expected to wait for another MS development cycle of indeterminate duration? Exactly. When I read in the summary that Windows 7 will be out in a year or two I just rolled my eyes. If past performance by MS is any indication, there will almost certainly be delays.
If the police have to get a warrant, I don't see what's wrong with this. If the police search your house (with a warrant of course) they can search the contents of a safe in your house too (maybe they need an extra warrant for that - IANAL - but the point is, locking something up doesn't make it illegal to search it). If you had a safe that, while theoretically could be broken into, in practice could only be broken into after months or years of effort, shouldn't the police be able to force you to open it up? Again, this is assuming they have a real reason to do so, and a court agrees.
Now, maybe this law doesn't require any warrants. But the woman in the article apparently had her computer seized in May. The police certainly can't do that without a warrant. She describes it as thugs stealing from her. My guess is they had a warrant, or else her lawyers would make dog food of the prosecution. Using hysterical language certainly doesn't her case though.
Re:3 million dollars per year is a pittance
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 1
...hindsight is 20/20. Never know until you try.
I wonder how long we should try. Obviously proving nonexistence is impossible, so we'll never have a definitive answer until we find something. But what if we didn't find anything in 1000 years of searching? How about 10,000?
Re:Meta to discussion: who is this "we" you speak
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 1
Governments contribute a large amount of the funding for SETI and scientific research in general. We have (at least in theory) the right to influence what our government spends money on. This is a discussion of public policy. So, I think it is okay to discuss the question "Do we as a society choose to fund x?" Or are you suggesting that research should not receive any public money?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with thinking that we can go to other planets if run out of space or resources here is that our growth is exponential. More people means that the same population growth rate results in a larger increase in population.
Suppose there is a limit L to some critical resource used by people. Let's say arable land. At some time t we will be using .5*L acres of land. Then at some time in the future t+dt world population doubles, and we are using L acres of land. There is no more land available. So, we decide to move to another planet and start using its arable land. Let's assume such an earth like planet exists, along with a mass teleportation device so that we can get there in a reasonable amount of time. Even under those dubious assumptions, in dt years population will double again. Oops, we are using 2L acres of land. That entire world was just consumed. Now we need 2 more earth like planets, and 2 more teleportation devices. The cycle continues, as long as our population growth is positive.
If there are limits on resources, population growth is the real problem.
TFA refers to a previous blog entry, which mostly explains things. To summarize: the people who are supposed to be in charge have mostly resigned or are MIA. The remaining leadership isn't doing things like updating the website, etc - the weekly newsletter hasn't been published in months. The real crises is that they didn't file routine paperwork with the state, which puts the legal status of the gentoo foundation in jeopardy. No one explained why to the community, or said much of anything. So, he's going to get the legal matters cleared up and find new people to be in charge.
My point is that the government already mandates identification. You already need a driver's license to get on an airplane or enter a federal building. Maybe that's a bad thing. Maybe the security features are a waste of money. But there's really no new attack on civil liberties here. Also, I think I'm reading the quote differently than you. The meaning I got was "Because driver's licenses are ids (and they already are) we should make them hard to counterfeit." The whole point is that people try to fake ids - that's why they are doing this.
I honestly don't understand what the problem is. There seems to be a hysterical "Show me your papers! OMG 1984!" knee jerk reaction whenever federal laws about driver's licenses are discussed. Why? Licenses exist in all states already. The set of things that licenses are required for is not changing. The states are just agreeing to make their licenses more similar. What's wrong with that?
The precinct in which this occurred had hand counted paper ballots (according to TFA). Actually, the entire state voted with paper ballots. A minority of towns counted the paper ballots with scanners. But, I reapeat: the scanners weren't even used in this precinct. This means that diebold systems aren't at fault for those lost votes and that verification of the results across the entire state is possible with a recount by hand.
This is a bad policy - no question - but I don't think it is the conscious goal of almost anyone in government to make people afraid, and therefore submissive. It seems to me that President Bush, for instance, genuinely believes what he says about "the terrorists". The fact that he knows things with his guts and then makes his brain go along makes for terrible policy, but I'm not quite ready to put on my tin foil hat and buy into this conspiracy.
I came away unclear about what actually happened. Just exactly what is the unmetered file download area? Did they just decide to stop being a mirror for openoffice? Are they doing something more malicious? If all that was done was some company stopped mirroring an open source project because they are launching a competitor, I fail to see what is remotely surprising about that.
You seem to have forgotten the most important steps:
Oh well ... You must be new here.
They already do this for quotations and books not under copyright. I often see wikipedia pages with a box that says something like, "Wikisource has original text related to this article: ". However, those boxes tend to show up at the bottom of the page in a section for links, which may limit how much they get noticed.
A wikimedia project for proofs would be great, especially if the related wikipedia articles make the links there more obvious.
Also, the actual changes to the article are not really that bad. Roughly half the changes are from statements like "X is true" to statements like "X is alleged." The other half - two or three sentences added and one removed - do show a bit more bias. But come on, this is one edit from 2005 that was somewhat of an NPOV violation. I'd be much more inclined to put on my tin foil hat if there was evidence of repeated edits, or if the article today had a hawkish slant.
In other parts of the US, a red light flashing means exactly what you thought!
I'm seeing the same thing as you, and I'm just as disgusted that this is front page material. This is what I would expect from digg.
The survey you link to doesn't support your claim about 61% of Americans not caring about positions. The survey asked participants if they think of themselves as democrat, republican, or independent. If a party was given, they were asked if they are a strong or not very strong democrat/republican. If instead of naming a party, they said they were independent, they were asked if they lean towards a party. The most recent results are: 10% independent, 29% leaning independent, 28% weak partisan, 33% strong partisan.
What I take away from the data is that two thirds of the country doesn't identify strongly with either party. I don't think it says anything about voters being mindless. Even for the third of people who are strong democrats or republicans, it is still very possible that those people considered the issues and realized that they strongly agree with whichever party. Voter motivation is an interesting question, but it is not addressed in that survey.
I also disagree with your comments on the primary process. I don't have any research to back this up, but it seems like common sense to say that voters in primaries and caucuses tend to be some of the most politically savvy citizens. Your mindless voters that are getting reeled in don't go to caucuses and don't watch primary debates.
To sum up, I think that Americans take their votes seriously and are not mindless.
Here's what the article says:
The asset purchase agreement says that Novell sold to Santa Cruz "all rights and ownership of UNIXWhat the APA says that was left out of TFA:
Seller will sell, convey, transfer, assign and deliver to Buyer and Buyer will purchase and acquire from Seller on the Closing Date (as defined in Section 1.7), all of Seller's right, title and interest in and to the assets and properties of Seller relating to the Business (collectively the Assets") identified on Schedule 1.1 (a) hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Assets to be so purchased shall not include those assets (the Excluded Assets") set forth on Schedule 1.1 (b)Schedule 1.1 (a) is where TFA is quoting from saying that SCO gets all the rights. But if you look ahead to Schedule 1.1 (b) (the list of assets not sold) there is this:
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare. Game. Set. Match.I thought you were very funny, yet you bring up an important point. I need a record of my passwords outside my brain. Where should that record exist?
I read the article, and it scared me a little because it sounds like there is a chance for SCO to appeal on the grounds that a jury should have decided exactly what the APA meant. I haven't read the full text of the APA and I don't remember the details from back when groklaw dissected it, but TFA manages to find quotes from it that seem contradictory. The article title is indeed inflammatory, and SCO's infringement claims certainly are bogus. My concern is SCO could use this to draw everything out still longer. Of course, there is the issue of them being bankrupt and bleeding the remaining assets they have, but it would be a damn shame if there was the appearance of SCO having any claim at all, especially if they go out of business before they can be proven wrong.
Terrorists crossing over from Mexico gets brought up a lot, but there haven't ever been any terrorists in this country (at least that I know of) that came over from Mexico. It seems really odd to me too. Why doesn't Al-Qaeda just send lots terrorists over the Mexican border? They don't have to target huge things once they are in this country either. All they really have to do is get a steady stream of people over the border and then have them disperse all over the country and start targeting infrastructure. Think of how much damage one person could do cutting power lines, attacking water treatment plants, blowing up power stations, bombing bridges, etc. There are so many things that could be targeted easily, and it is so easy to get into this country. So why isn't it happening?
Yeah, and in his accidental fit of hyperbole, he "forgot" about AIDS, heroin addiction, drunk driving, diabetes, heart disease and obesity.
dWhat could possibly go wrong?
There is also a spelling error in the summary:
UTC (nee 'Greenwich' time).The first time I read that sentence, my brain didn't catch the error. Our brains see what they expect to see...
...businesses are expected to wait for another MS development cycle of indeterminate duration? Exactly. When I read in the summary that Windows 7 will be out in a year or two I just rolled my eyes. If past performance by MS is any indication, there will almost certainly be delays.If the police have to get a warrant, I don't see what's wrong with this. If the police search your house (with a warrant of course) they can search the contents of a safe in your house too (maybe they need an extra warrant for that - IANAL - but the point is, locking something up doesn't make it illegal to search it). If you had a safe that, while theoretically could be broken into, in practice could only be broken into after months or years of effort, shouldn't the police be able to force you to open it up? Again, this is assuming they have a real reason to do so, and a court agrees.
Now, maybe this law doesn't require any warrants. But the woman in the article apparently had her computer seized in May. The police certainly can't do that without a warrant. She describes it as thugs stealing from her. My guess is they had a warrant, or else her lawyers would make dog food of the prosecution. Using hysterical language certainly doesn't her case though.
...hindsight is 20/20. Never know until you try.I wonder how long we should try. Obviously proving nonexistence is impossible, so we'll never have a definitive answer until we find something. But what if we didn't find anything in 1000 years of searching? How about 10,000?
Governments contribute a large amount of the funding for SETI and scientific research in general. We have (at least in theory) the right to influence what our government spends money on. This is a discussion of public policy. So, I think it is okay to discuss the question "Do we as a society choose to fund x?" Or are you suggesting that research should not receive any public money?