Well, if we were talking about a mere human without the power to save the eternal soul, sure, that would not be someone you would want to submit willingly to.
Our lack of understanding is not equivalent to God's arbitrariness.
Also, some people see no difference between causing and permitting, when it is supposed to be the Omnipotent doing either the causing or the permitting.
Everywhere you could live in a real world is dangerous. Would you rather this Omnipotent God put you in an unreal world so you could try to experience life there?
You're going to need your wits about you, whether to escape or whether to help. Although, as I type this, I realize you may not have power to run your computer and read this.
Fuel storage tanks. Those big round natural gas tanks. 30 meter flames.
Ouch. This is the kind of fire you just wait out. Or dynamite, but they have too many tanks nearby.
Oh. The radio now says the nuclear power plants are not in as good condition as they thought.
And millions of homes already without power. This could be worse than the Kobe quake of the last decade.
I felt the tremors in Higashi Osaka city. Joked with the other teachers in the office that it felt like an amusement park ride. Then the headmaster turned on the TV. One of the teachers who was in a parent-teacher conference came down and said he initially thought he was just dizzy. Said he was glad it wasn't dizziness after all, then thought about it and said maybe it would have been better if it were just dizziness.
Wakayama is south of here and the radio says a Tsunami is approaching.
I think the point is that the low-power segment is owned by ARM.
One thing here, it sounds like I'll be finally able to get a netbook with a non-INTEL CPU that will run the primary Fedora distro. (And run flash, as well, for my kids.)
(When intel quits trying to take over our pipes, I'll be a lot less biased against them.)
I didn't think about blending (although it's an interesting thought, would these tend (statistically) to survive a blender or to be blended by a blender?
But what I noticed is that 4000 would be a bit over half the transistors necessary for a 6809, and that induced a daydream about running a bunch of OS9-6809 hardware instances in the bracelet you give your wife. Or having a cluster of TRS 80 Color Computers in your belt.
A bike chain is not really all that flexible, even in the direction of the hinging.
Also, I have seen, recently, bicycles with rubber belts (with teeth). I'm not sure why, but some people seem to think they are worth manufacturing.
Flexibility has its uses. In this case, the flexibility may be useful at scales where the simply small well tend to bind, much the way a bike chain will tend to bind.
I assume, then, that you have plenty of (probably dynamically generated) decoys scattered around so that it really can't be found without knowing the location in advance?
There is no such thing as IP. There are only liens on pieces of the intellectual commons (which is stupid). There were originally supposed to only be liens on pieces of the market commons.
Make the liens relatively short, according to the subject and the market.
70 years for copyright might as well be a grant of nobility for the author^H^H^H^H^H^H publishing company.
20 years is too long for patents in a fast moving industry like computers. 3 years is almost a grant of nobility in computer hardware, and 1 year might as well be in software.
The core original problem, however, was underfunding the patent office, so that they were unable to use the developing information technology to make a searchable database of all the developing technologies.
No, the core original problem is that Americans want the trappings of royalty without the name, to try to worm their way around the Constitution. Underfunding the patent office and the other things that happened to advance the cause of the blockers over the innovators, all that was just strategy on the parts of a loosely-organized bunch of arrogant rich people who got rich because making money is easier than making things of actual value, and, because they never made anything useful, now they have inferiority complexes and have this insane need to protect what they mistakenly think they have.
Malice? Incompetence? Never believe they can be separated for long.
For example, I can post a link to this page. Google can now see the page. Of course, it could get to that page from within shopper.cnet.com, anyway, but the robots.txt file or NOINDEX/NOFOLLOW tags may be warning it off. (So Google has to walk the URL back up to http://shopper.cnet.com/robots.txt, to make sure, and it may not see http://www.shopper.com/robots.txt, by the way.)
More to the point, I can post a link to this page of a search result on shopper.com. Then Google can see that search. And, in an hour or two, it might show up in a google search of "wall wart servers", which would be useless, but anyway.
I can post a link to this query, however, and, not only might Google's spider collect it (from here), but it might not even have to get it from here. I'm probably not the first person to search shopper.com for "Small office home office server".
I can't see there being an ethical issue here, because those links feed people to shopper.com. In fact, cnet likely has some agreements with Google on that. And many such search sites (well, smaller ones) deliberately use Google's search engines to save themselves a bit of infrastructure cost.
Google, on the other hand, may prefer not to put some of those small search sites results on their general search pages, but that's a side issue.
Now, how do you suppose that bing picks up a query like, "m4-7734-6al 63363r"? Unless someone posts that (like I just did), how does bing get that query just from my using it in a Google search a few minutes ago?
To say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, you'd be accusing google of planting code in Chrome that watches for bing search results and feeds them back to google's search engine optimizer on the sly. (A new way for a browser to call home!) And/or of making deals with the Mozilla team. But the evidence you mention doesn't really support that, as someone else points out.
Not that there are no calls for collective response. No, those voices have not been silenced, which is just as well.
But there may be some increasing recognition that collective action or reaction, either way, begins with individual action.
Somebody (an individual) has to be the first person to move.
And somebody (an individual) has to be the next person to move.
And so on. Individuals have to believe they have responsibility to act. They have to be free to act. Government can't induce responsible action in individuals without recognizing individual responsibility, and responsibility is just freedom looked at from the other side.
Real freedom, that is.
Not context-free existence, not freedom from the effects of bad things happening. Quite the opposite, really -- the freedom to receive the consequences, good or bad, of one has done, as an individual.
Too much of the rhetoric of the collective is about fear of things happening. But that rhetoric is as false as the rhetoric about making individuals free to act without consequence. Society exists because individuals exist. Far too much talk about preventing the consequences of bad decisions by individuals and not nearly enough about helping individuals recover from the consequences of bad decisions.
And if you want to talk about preventing the bad things from happening in the first place, that's a false economy when it goes so far as to impede individual responsibility, because worse things happen. When you try to guarantee security, you prevent individuals from receiving the consequences of their laziness or bad fortune, but you also impede the consequences of their industry, and the consequence of industry happens to be what makes society run.
If you read the material they are providing, they are saying the right things.
That is, if such a card must exist, they seem to be saying that they will do it the right way.
In the US, no, this would be a bad idea.
In Russia, it might be an improvement. That remains to be seen, and I would hope for them to have plans for doing away with the card at some point in the future, but I can't say it would not be an improvement.
Just because USians are trying to throw their freedom away in over-reaction to an act of war about ten years ago does not mean that the principles of freedom change.
On the other hand, whereas an ID card in the US is still a huge problem, relative to maintaining the freedoms recognized by the Constitution, the cultural context is different in Russia.
Single points of failure are always a weakness in a system. They are also sometimes expedient, the issue being whether they can be implemented now in a way to allow the single point of failure problems to be alleviated in the future.
You're happy to compare and contrast with whose data?
You seem to be willing to push the former satellite states under the rug to make your point, with data that is pretty much known to be unchecked and uncheckable, whether you take the one side or the other in the debate.
We know that the records that can be had must be taken with more than a few grains of salt. Likewise, the current reports, either way.
We also know that security is a siren song.
And we know that freedom sucks. So what?
The debate itself is proof of change, of the existence of a window of opportunity that was not there before.
No, the world did not suddenly turn into DisneyLand everywhere. You (and they) were expecting that?
Freedom has costs.
Comparing security and other perquisites in current Russia and associated states, who are in the midst of a relatively non-violent revolution, with what was in the Soviet Union before the cracks in the walls became too wide for that society to sustain itself, is a specious argument.
I know I'm making myself look a little naively retro by saying this, but just how do you define "basic needs"?
Is it reasonable for a government to refuse to recognize the fundamental freedom of the individual, when the people in power are using their own inherent freedoms to give themselves a false sense of security at the expense of the other individuals?
The present case in the US, where the government officially recognizes freedoms, but the people in power are lining their nests at the expense of the "little people" or whatever they call us, is not exactly wonderful, but will US citizens be better off if (when?) the people in power generally refuse to admit that individuals can make responsible choices?
That is the core question:
Can the people in general be allowed to act responsibly?
Is it not a basic need to be allowed to assume responsibility for oneself?
The problem is that you (and they) are asking the question too soon. Learning how to deal with a government that recognizes the inherent freedom of the individual is scary, and takes some time, even when the people are brave enough to go for it.
Whether they will end up better off or not is up to them.
We used to say that and know, deep inside, that we were lying. Now, there is a chance, even if it doesn't yet look very promising.
To my way of thinking, that such a question can even be asked is indication of a fundamental shift, even though the conservatives are dragging their feet and trying to bring back the old familiar ways of keeping their security back.
Security, at any rate, is an illusion, always was.
Hmm. The process is known, but it is complicated (tricky, it sounds like, since you have to re-expose the film several times to different colors of light (which may be part of the reason for the vivid colors?)) and use chemicals even more poisonous than those used in the more common processes.
But I'm going to guess that there will be amateurs/independents who try to reproduce the process for those people whose rolls didn't make it to Dwayne's in time for the last cans of the official chemicals.
First, you have to develop the film to get any kind of image at all.
Well, okay, theoretically, you could scan the film, but not with any ordinary scanner. The light from the scanner, you see, would wash the image right out.
You have to develop film to bring the image out into a form that is visible to the unaided/untrained eye. Developing also stabilizes the image so that further exposure to light doesn't wash it out.
Places to educate yourself even further (regards negative and positive process film, etc.):
Education should be the goal of the student, not of the school or its staff. (Providing a good environment for education is a different goal from educating, of course.)
Tests can be motivators. I know, when I signed up for the Japanese Language Proficiency Test recently, in spite of my complaints about how they run it, I actually buckled down and studied for the three months before the test.
(Then I relaxed by reading a Japanese novel after the test. Of course. And I'll read more now. I don't want to waste my effort.)
Tests should be re-absorbed into the education process, and then cheating as a problem can be dealt with where it should be dealt with.
Too much of our testing is divorced from the education process, scores out of context.
Tests can be good motivational tools. I know I study harder when I have a deadline and about 7000 yen invested in a test.
Even studying for the test is not worthless, because it provides tracks the student can follow into a subject, and because it allows the student to evaluate his or her progress, as long as the student has the questions and answers afterwards, for review.
Scores, however, are not nearly as important as we have made them, and actually tend to get in the way. The more we emphasize the scores, especially as a goal independent of the subject, the more the score gets in the way.
Some of the things we used to call cheating (test taking strategies, for instance) we, for some reason, no longer call cheating, even though being good at them does not show any ability at the subject being tested.
Value judgements used against people is a problem. So is lack of value judgement.
The goal of an educator should not be to ensure that the students get a quality education. That should be the goal of the students. If there is a valid goal for the educator, it would be to provide students with means to get the education they desire, of the quality they desire.
Grading cannot be done mechanically and achieve the goal of communicating the students performance to the external world. (And there is no other valid purpose in producing grades that the external world can see.)
The students who cheat get the diploma and get cheated out of the education. It has always been the case, and it won't be changed by changing the rules about what kind of cheating is punished.
We try to protect "intellectual property" as if it were physical property.
Epic fail.
So we try to wrap the epic fail in so many bandages as to make the rest of society dysfunctual.
When an OS does this kind of exception response, it's called a double fault and generally results in a system panic.
Human systems also go into panic mode when this kind of epic fail cascades into more epic fails.
The testing model is also wrong, as I mentioned above. We try to separate testing from education.
Epic fail. Double fault, because we were already trying to separate education from vocation, avocation, and all the rest of anything that can make education meaningful.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if we were talking about a mere human without the power to save the eternal soul, sure, that would not be someone you would want to submit willingly to.
Our lack of understanding is not equivalent to God's arbitrariness.
Also, some people see no difference between causing and permitting, when it is supposed to be the Omnipotent doing either the causing or the permitting.
Everywhere you could live in a real world is dangerous. Would you rather this Omnipotent God put you in an unreal world so you could try to experience life there?
I'd suggest avoiding being drunk this weekend.
You're going to need your wits about you, whether to escape or whether to help. Although, as I type this, I realize you may not have power to run your computer and read this.
Be careful.
Factory?
Fuel storage tanks. Those big round natural gas tanks. 30 meter flames.
Ouch. This is the kind of fire you just wait out. Or dynamite, but they have too many tanks nearby.
Oh. The radio now says the nuclear power plants are not in as good condition as they thought.
And millions of homes already without power. This could be worse than the Kobe quake of the last decade.
I felt the tremors in Higashi Osaka city. Joked with the other teachers in the office that it felt like an amusement park ride. Then the headmaster turned on the TV. One of the teachers who was in a parent-teacher conference came down and said he initially thought he was just dizzy. Said he was glad it wasn't dizziness after all, then thought about it and said maybe it would have been better if it were just dizziness.
Wakayama is south of here and the radio says a Tsunami is approaching.
This isn't an ARM chip.
(I personally think AMD should be picking up ARM designs, to help us shake off the burden of x86, but that's not what this is about.)
I think the point is that the low-power segment is owned by ARM.
One thing here, it sounds like I'll be finally able to get a netbook with a non-INTEL CPU that will run the primary Fedora distro. (And run flash, as well, for my kids.)
(When intel quits trying to take over our pipes, I'll be a lot less biased against them.)
On the other hand, the future is ARM, not x86.
I didn't think about blending (although it's an interesting thought, would these tend (statistically) to survive a blender or to be blended by a blender?
But what I noticed is that 4000 would be a bit over half the transistors necessary for a 6809, and that induced a daydream about running a bunch of OS9-6809 hardware instances in the bracelet you give your wife. Or having a cluster of TRS 80 Color Computers in your belt.
A bike chain is not really all that flexible, even in the direction of the hinging.
Also, I have seen, recently, bicycles with rubber belts (with teeth). I'm not sure why, but some people seem to think they are worth manufacturing.
Flexibility has its uses. In this case, the flexibility may be useful at scales where the simply small well tend to bind, much the way a bike chain will tend to bind.
I assume, then, that you have plenty of (probably dynamically generated) decoys scattered around so that it really can't be found without knowing the location in advance?
Strong IP laws?
There is no such thing as IP. There are only liens on pieces of the intellectual commons (which is stupid). There were originally supposed to only be liens on pieces of the market commons.
Make the liens relatively short, according to the subject and the market.
70 years for copyright might as well be a grant of nobility for the author^H^H^H^H^H^H publishing company.
20 years is too long for patents in a fast moving industry like computers. 3 years is almost a grant of nobility in computer hardware, and 1 year might as well be in software.
The core original problem, however, was underfunding the patent office, so that they were unable to use the developing information technology to make a searchable database of all the developing technologies.
No, the core original problem is that Americans want the trappings of royalty without the name, to try to worm their way around the Constitution. Underfunding the patent office and the other things that happened to advance the cause of the blockers over the innovators, all that was just strategy on the parts of a loosely-organized bunch of arrogant rich people who got rich because making money is easier than making things of actual value, and, because they never made anything useful, now they have inferiority complexes and have this insane need to protect what they mistakenly think they have.
Malice? Incompetence? Never believe they can be separated for long.
I think you're confused on the point of "attack".
For example, I can post a link to this page. Google can now see the page. Of course, it could get to that page from within shopper.cnet.com, anyway, but the robots.txt file or NOINDEX/NOFOLLOW tags may be warning it off. (So Google has to walk the URL back up to http://shopper.cnet.com/robots.txt, to make sure, and it may not see http://www.shopper.com/robots.txt, by the way.)
More to the point, I can post a link to this page of a search result on shopper.com. Then Google can see that search. And, in an hour or two, it might show up in a google search of "wall wart servers", which would be useless, but anyway.
I can post a link to this query, however, and, not only might Google's spider collect it (from here), but it might not even have to get it from here. I'm probably not the first person to search shopper.com for "Small office home office server".
I can't see there being an ethical issue here, because those links feed people to shopper.com. In fact, cnet likely has some agreements with Google on that. And many such search sites (well, smaller ones) deliberately use Google's search engines to save themselves a bit of infrastructure cost.
Google, on the other hand, may prefer not to put some of those small search sites results on their general search pages, but that's a side issue.
Now, how do you suppose that bing picks up a query like, "m4-7734-6al 63363r"? Unless someone posts that (like I just did), how does bing get that query just from my using it in a Google search a few minutes ago?
To say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, you'd be accusing google of planting code in Chrome that watches for bing search results and feeds them back to google's search engine optimizer on the sly. (A new way for a browser to call home!) And/or of making deals with the Mozilla team. But the evidence you mention doesn't really support that, as someone else points out.
Not that there are no calls for collective response. No, those voices have not been silenced, which is just as well.
But there may be some increasing recognition that collective action or reaction, either way, begins with individual action.
Somebody (an individual) has to be the first person to move.
And somebody (an individual) has to be the next person to move.
And so on. Individuals have to believe they have responsibility to act. They have to be free to act. Government can't induce responsible action in individuals without recognizing individual responsibility, and responsibility is just freedom looked at from the other side.
Real freedom, that is.
Not context-free existence, not freedom from the effects of bad things happening. Quite the opposite, really -- the freedom to receive the consequences, good or bad, of one has done, as an individual.
Too much of the rhetoric of the collective is about fear of things happening. But that rhetoric is as false as the rhetoric about making individuals free to act without consequence. Society exists because individuals exist. Far too much talk about preventing the consequences of bad decisions by individuals and not nearly enough about helping individuals recover from the consequences of bad decisions.
And if you want to talk about preventing the bad things from happening in the first place, that's a false economy when it goes so far as to impede individual responsibility, because worse things happen. When you try to guarantee security, you prevent individuals from receiving the consequences of their laziness or bad fortune, but you also impede the consequences of their industry, and the consequence of industry happens to be what makes society run.
And it's easy to criticize the past when you were not one of the ones sent to Siberia.
Maslow's context dependent theoretical prioritization of needs notwithstanding.
If you read the material they are providing, they are saying the right things.
That is, if such a card must exist, they seem to be saying that they will do it the right way.
In the US, no, this would be a bad idea.
In Russia, it might be an improvement. That remains to be seen, and I would hope for them to have plans for doing away with the card at some point in the future, but I can't say it would not be an improvement.
Just because USians are trying to throw their freedom away in over-reaction to an act of war about ten years ago does not mean that the principles of freedom change.
On the other hand, whereas an ID card in the US is still a huge problem, relative to maintaining the freedoms recognized by the Constitution, the cultural context is different in Russia.
Single points of failure are always a weakness in a system. They are also sometimes expedient, the issue being whether they can be implemented now in a way to allow the single point of failure problems to be alleviated in the future.
You're happy to compare and contrast with whose data?
You seem to be willing to push the former satellite states under the rug to make your point, with data that is pretty much known to be unchecked and uncheckable, whether you take the one side or the other in the debate.
We know that the records that can be had must be taken with more than a few grains of salt. Likewise, the current reports, either way.
We also know that security is a siren song.
And we know that freedom sucks. So what?
The debate itself is proof of change, of the existence of a window of opportunity that was not there before.
No, the world did not suddenly turn into DisneyLand everywhere. You (and they) were expecting that?
Freedom has costs.
Comparing security and other perquisites in current Russia and associated states, who are in the midst of a relatively non-violent revolution, with what was in the Soviet Union before the cracks in the walls became too wide for that society to sustain itself, is a specious argument.
I know I'm making myself look a little naively retro by saying this, but just how do you define "basic needs"?
Is it reasonable for a government to refuse to recognize the fundamental freedom of the individual, when the people in power are using their own inherent freedoms to give themselves a false sense of security at the expense of the other individuals?
The present case in the US, where the government officially recognizes freedoms, but the people in power are lining their nests at the expense of the "little people" or whatever they call us, is not exactly wonderful, but will US citizens be better off if (when?) the people in power generally refuse to admit that individuals can make responsible choices?
That is the core question:
Can the people in general be allowed to act responsibly?
Is it not a basic need to be allowed to assume responsibility for oneself?
The problem is that you (and they) are asking the question too soon. Learning how to deal with a government that recognizes the inherent freedom of the individual is scary, and takes some time, even when the people are brave enough to go for it.
Whether they will end up better off or not is up to them.
We used to say that and know, deep inside, that we were lying. Now, there is a chance, even if it doesn't yet look very promising.
To my way of thinking, that such a question can even be asked is indication of a fundamental shift, even though the conservatives are dragging their feet and trying to bring back the old familiar ways of keeping their security back.
Security, at any rate, is an illusion, always was.
Hmm. The process is known, but it is complicated (tricky, it sounds like, since you have to re-expose the film several times to different colors of light (which may be part of the reason for the vivid colors?)) and use chemicals even more poisonous than those used in the more common processes.
But I'm going to guess that there will be amateurs/independents who try to reproduce the process for those people whose rolls didn't make it to Dwayne's in time for the last cans of the official chemicals.
First, you have to develop the film to get any kind of image at all.
Well, okay, theoretically, you could scan the film, but not with any ordinary scanner. The light from the scanner, you see, would wash the image right out.
You have to develop film to bring the image out into a form that is visible to the unaided/untrained eye. Developing also stabilizes the image so that further exposure to light doesn't wash it out.
Places to educate yourself even further (regards negative and positive process film, etc.):
kodachrome
slide filme
Oh, and search Google for kodachrome and, more interesting, perhaps, kodachrome negative. (Why interesting? It brought up, among other things, this.
Education should be the goal of the student, not of the school or its staff. (Providing a good environment for education is a different goal from educating, of course.)
Tests can be motivators. I know, when I signed up for the Japanese Language Proficiency Test recently, in spite of my complaints about how they run it, I actually buckled down and studied for the three months before the test.
(Then I relaxed by reading a Japanese novel after the test. Of course. And I'll read more now. I don't want to waste my effort.)
Tests should be re-absorbed into the education process, and then cheating as a problem can be dealt with where it should be dealt with.
We need to use them differently.
Too much of our testing is divorced from the education process, scores out of context.
Tests can be good motivational tools. I know I study harder when I have a deadline and about 7000 yen invested in a test.
Even studying for the test is not worthless, because it provides tracks the student can follow into a subject, and because it allows the student to evaluate his or her progress, as long as the student has the questions and answers afterwards, for review.
Scores, however, are not nearly as important as we have made them, and actually tend to get in the way. The more we emphasize the scores, especially as a goal independent of the subject, the more the score gets in the way.
Some of the things we used to call cheating (test taking strategies, for instance) we, for some reason, no longer call cheating, even though being good at them does not show any ability at the subject being tested.
Value judgements used against people is a problem. So is lack of value judgement.
The goal of an educator should not be to ensure that the students get a quality education. That should be the goal of the students. If there is a valid goal for the educator, it would be to provide students with means to get the education they desire, of the quality they desire.
Grading cannot be done mechanically and achieve the goal of communicating the students performance to the external world. (And there is no other valid purpose in producing grades that the external world can see.)
The students who cheat get the diploma and get cheated out of the education. It has always been the case, and it won't be changed by changing the rules about what kind of cheating is punished.
We try to protect "intellectual property" as if it were physical property.
Epic fail.
So we try to wrap the epic fail in so many bandages as to make the rest of society dysfunctual.
When an OS does this kind of exception response, it's called a double fault and generally results in a system panic.
Human systems also go into panic mode when this kind of epic fail cascades into more epic fails.
The testing model is also wrong, as I mentioned above. We try to separate testing from education.
Epic fail. Double fault, because we were already trying to separate education from vocation, avocation, and all the rest of anything that can make education meaningful.