That is a broad sweep of logic. I assume by economy you mean people in general and not just a few. Since profit is not distributed to everybody equally, then what is good for the economy, means what is good for those who use the workers and as a result, nobody else. It seems that when you say economy, you mean money for a specific group that you may be a part of? I would like to see a model of the process you describe and the algorithms that affect the process implemented in a systems modeling tool.It seems it would be easier to consider if the modification of certain system control functions could be measured in the distribution of the gain developed.
I am not sure why I would trust a politician to protect my children. I know myself, and I don't take government money and use it to buy sex. Why would I let such perverted old farts baby sit my daughters? And as far as technology, I trust them less with technology and my freedom than I do with my daughters.
I work in this business and I know the business models. The advantage to the hardware manufacturer is the reduced cost of creating the system initially and more profit for hardware mfg. The advantage to the user is longer use and more use per dollar. In order to compete on an even playing field the need to upgrade still exists as this is what people want, the newest and fastest because it wins. It is a win for hardware and consumer, loss for a forced middle man software vendor. Innovation does not come from a monopoly and given a specific software vendor a free ride is expensive. Status quo is a way to lose in an ever more competitive world economy.
It seems that if Linux were available as a free alternative in every PC shipped, it could provide a longer life to products that could be shared ( like hand me down clothes ) to younger siblings or new users to make the best use of the effort of creating machines and the least toxic landfill. I would think that it would be in everybody's interest to contribute to open source, like any system that exists to fill a need which is not commercial ( like Red Cross ) but serves a need of humanity.
I don't mind modding once in a while and the policies seem to work generally and programmers should have a better idea of how to implement a content filtering method that might be useful for everybody. I for one welcome our new content filtered overlords. I think that there is sufficient intellect connected to slashdot to become a filter for those who would like to understand or begin in programming. I know bad code when I see it and why not let others look at life through rows(colored) = glasses; ps -A;kill -SIGKILL #*;? For each comment, where content != goat.....
If I add my GPS tracker to a GPS to find out who is using GPS on me, when it leaves my car, I am simply acting to investigate something on my property and if it turns out that it is a stalker, I am justified. In any case, if it is in my possession it seems it would be mine to do what I please with. I hardly think planting things in my pocket constitutes theft by my action.
My (current instar) human host body doesn't even speak for itself.
I personally do not speak for myself either unless I am on conference call with all my personalities present, but I would like to say that I think my human tiger hybrid would eat up the competition in 'any' event ( bata boom bata bing...
Stanford has started a project to grow human brain stem cells in a different species and so this is quite doable, I hope you speak for the IOC as I have a tiger that wants to compete in the broad jump.
I think we should allow dolphins to compete with swimmers and elephants compete with weight lifters. And what about gene doping, we could just clone the winner, switch a few DNA code lines and the best distro wins. Seems fair to me.
If this were not about the capability of people to use logic in general, I would not respond to this. There are infinite things in infinite things. It is a concept and not a physicality. If an all powerful entity is capable of anything, why not cut to the chase and make a decent person who doesn't argue with every person they come into contact with, and instead chooses to work in a concerted manner toward common goals.
I hope that these dangerous things end up somewhere that will handle them properly, like a government run Anthrax facility. Is it reasonable to assume that even if he was doing something iffy, that it would be wise to remove it from context when the person was obviously competent and willing to explain and work with them. By handling something without specific knowledge of the individual, many things can become hazardous by recombination and association in a way that the user never intended. Many household and farm chemicals can present a risk when improperly handled and by excluding the person who had immediate knowledge they create a greater hazard.
Many of the chemicals we use here in farm country can be used in improper ways and if a farmer has a lot of anhydrous, it invariably means he is farming and not producing Meth. The isolation of the government from people leads to this problem. If they had known the guy and spoke to him as a person, would this situation have ever arisen.
Some small company named BIM had this problem and I remember some other letters too, VLB , MCA. I could be a little dislicex today but I do seem to remember that BIM made a mess of that business when they tried to create a monopoly in the MCA. Perhaps Intel will make the same mistake as his father Lord Vader.
I would like to see a CPU + coreboot (Linux) embedded with a connection block as a single monolithic unit. Defeats the necessity of having an installed OS chosen by the hardware vendor. I would guess this type of product would be vastly more competitive.
Having been in this business, I agree with you completely. It only makes sense to integrate this functionality. The complexity of the market makes it impossible to continue constructing things at the transistor level to take the analogy of the early Japanese radios. I won't comment on the monopolistic or monolithic problems with that, but the complexity in use is certainly better for advancing the art and I look forward to having the standard core and some innovation which can inter-operate with it.
I agree, I have been telling the women who want to be prostitutes in Vegas for a long time that I operate an open source prostitution business and they need to get experience if they want to be successful.
I think that work in open source is an end in itself. I find that people who work in open source tend to be talented in many areas of technology. The open source is just a way to apply the knowledge in the broadest possible way.
I wish you mbrains would quit posting anonymously so I could mod you up. And if you didn't hide your home planets, I for one would welcome our new mbrain overlords.
I imagine it is all a war game and the security people are rife with honey pots to see what techniques they are using. I would bet there is some subtle disinformation moving also. It is their spy Olympics. Six degrees of deception. Sadly, I think they are out of their league in this game.
I did notice the difference when I took graduate level, however a great deal of the problem stems from the fact that funding for bleeding edge equipment is a secondary concern for many administrators. Failure to pay and overworking the professors does not help either. The graduate level molecular genetics I took was forced on a person who was also doing critical research and they crammed a full year course into a semester. It puts undue stress on students and teacher.
The concept of a simple common way to deal with data models is a process that seems to be heading towards standards which would be nice. Something like the openGL standards or blender file formats. If there were a standard way to represent complex interactive systems as even a bot script for a 3D world that could easily be shared like a language of systems interaction. I have been looking at littleb and that may evolve into a standard which can represent systems so that problems and solutions drift to the top so they can be dealt with. The vast amount of data available seems to be the problem today. There is more information than there are people trained to interpret it.
I found an open source project called 'littleb' which can be researched at littleb.org that may provide a common framework to analyze and understand these aspects of systems. If a good functional model can be made then it is easier to see how changes and evolving situations might proceed. Not enough tools exist as yet to define the points of action between molecular systems. It is certainly approaching this point and I always enjoy new topics and - converging search through noisy space - sounds like fun. Secondary electron interaction in systems which were considered to only interact with valence electrons is an interesting new area also.
It takes time for these things to filter down to the education system because of their momentum and lag. I noticed in the early days of PC development it was almost a joke to listen to college professors talk about computer design. I recently took courses in molecular genetics and though it was good for the basics, it incorporated ideas like central dogma ( DNA - RNA ) that are also not completely true. The idea that there are self-catalyzing molecules is sufficient to define a perpetual loop. On this/. topic, ( V vs V ) it does lead into something which I have wondered about for some time, which is the chemical system underpinning of genetic life, which must surely exist in the protein world.
Sadly millions of people die because of a little molecule of RNA or even their own SNP's. I don't doubt that many things are risky, the question is whether the approach is useful and valid. My opinion remains that it is an ineffective and costly process that interferes with life more than it protects it.
So you agree with me , but you want me to reveal the information which makes matters worse. I would call you Newton, but it seems your name is BoB. I agree with your assessment of the situation and perhaps it is something they already know. It isn't my job to know that. I am too lazy to look and if I Google for it, they would have the Jeopardy answer. It only serves a terrorist or further incites the TSA to show them holes and that was the premise of the parent and I was simply agreeing and accepting the constraints that I shouldn't just dump security flaws on the net anymore than security flaws in any other system just to prove my talent.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a broad sweep of logic. I assume by economy you mean people in general and not just a few. Since profit is not distributed to everybody equally, then what is good for the economy, means what is good for those who use the workers and as a result, nobody else. It seems that when you say economy, you mean money for a specific group that you may be a part of? I would like to see a model of the process you describe and the algorithms that affect the process implemented in a systems modeling tool.It seems it would be easier to consider if the modification of certain system control functions could be measured in the distribution of the gain developed.
I am not sure why I would trust a politician to protect my children. I know myself, and I don't take government money and use it to buy sex. Why would I let such perverted old farts baby sit my daughters? And as far as technology, I trust them less with technology and my freedom than I do with my daughters.
I work in this business and I know the business models. The advantage to the hardware manufacturer is the reduced cost of creating the system initially and more profit for hardware mfg. The advantage to the user is longer use and more use per dollar. In order to compete on an even playing field the need to upgrade still exists as this is what people want, the newest and fastest because it wins. It is a win for hardware and consumer, loss for a forced middle man software vendor. Innovation does not come from a monopoly and given a specific software vendor a free ride is expensive. Status quo is a way to lose in an ever more competitive world economy.
It seems that if Linux were available as a free alternative in every PC shipped, it could provide a longer life to products that could be shared ( like hand me down clothes ) to younger siblings or new users to make the best use of the effort of creating machines and the least toxic landfill. I would think that it would be in everybody's interest to contribute to open source, like any system that exists to fill a need which is not commercial ( like Red Cross ) but serves a need of humanity.
I don't mind modding once in a while and the policies seem to work generally and programmers should have a better idea of how to implement a content filtering method that might be useful for everybody. I for one welcome our new content filtered overlords. I think that there is sufficient intellect connected to slashdot to become a filter for those who would like to understand or begin in programming. I know bad code when I see it and why not let others look at life through rows(colored) = glasses; ps -A;kill -SIGKILL #*;? .....
For each comment, where content != goat
If I add my GPS tracker to a GPS to find out who is using GPS on me, when it leaves my car, I am simply acting to investigate something on my property and if it turns out that it is a stalker, I am justified. In any case, if it is in my possession it seems it would be mine to do what I please with. I hardly think planting things in my pocket constitutes theft by my action.
I hope you speak for the IOC
My (current instar) human host body doesn't even speak for itself.
I personally do not speak for myself either unless I am on conference call with all my personalities present, but I would like to say that I think my human tiger hybrid would eat up the competition in 'any' event ( bata boom bata bing...
Stanford has started a project to grow human brain stem cells in a different species and so this is quite doable, I hope you speak for the IOC as I have a tiger that wants to compete in the broad jump.
I think we should allow dolphins to compete with swimmers and elephants compete with weight lifters. And what about gene doping, we could just clone the winner, switch a few DNA code lines and the best distro wins. Seems fair to me.
If this were not about the capability of people to use logic in general, I would not respond to this. There are infinite things in infinite things. It is a concept and not a physicality. If an all powerful entity is capable of anything, why not cut to the chase and make a decent person who doesn't argue with every person they come into contact with, and instead chooses to work in a concerted manner toward common goals.
I hope that these dangerous things end up somewhere that will handle them properly, like a government run Anthrax facility. Is it reasonable to assume that even if he was doing something iffy, that it would be wise to remove it from context when the person was obviously competent and willing to explain and work with them. By handling something without specific knowledge of the individual, many things can become hazardous by recombination and association in a way that the user never intended. Many household and farm chemicals can present a risk when improperly handled and by excluding the person who had immediate knowledge they create a greater hazard. Many of the chemicals we use here in farm country can be used in improper ways and if a farmer has a lot of anhydrous, it invariably means he is farming and not producing Meth. The isolation of the government from people leads to this problem. If they had known the guy and spoke to him as a person, would this situation have ever arisen.
Some small company named BIM had this problem and I remember some other letters too, VLB , MCA. I could be a little dislicex today but I do seem to remember that BIM made a mess of that business when they tried to create a monopoly in the MCA. Perhaps Intel will make the same mistake as his father Lord Vader.
I would like to see a CPU + coreboot (Linux) embedded with a connection block as a single monolithic unit. Defeats the necessity of having an installed OS chosen by the hardware vendor. I would guess this type of product would be vastly more competitive.
Having been in this business, I agree with you completely. It only makes sense to integrate this functionality. The complexity of the market makes it impossible to continue constructing things at the transistor level to take the analogy of the early Japanese radios. I won't comment on the monopolistic or monolithic problems with that, but the complexity in use is certainly better for advancing the art and I look forward to having the standard core and some innovation which can inter-operate with it.
I agree, I have been telling the women who want to be prostitutes in Vegas for a long time that I operate an open source prostitution business and they need to get experience if they want to be successful. I think that work in open source is an end in itself. I find that people who work in open source tend to be talented in many areas of technology. The open source is just a way to apply the knowledge in the broadest possible way.
My guess it is an attempt of a marketing firm to copy the success of the 'caveman' adds. Vista is so easy, a flat earther could hack it.
Then let RIAA defend you, (ducks and covers ).
I wish you mbrains would quit posting anonymously so I could mod you up. And if you didn't hide your home planets, I for one would welcome our new mbrain overlords.
I imagine it is all a war game and the security people are rife with honey pots to see what techniques they are using. I would bet there is some subtle disinformation moving also. It is their spy Olympics. Six degrees of deception. Sadly, I think they are out of their league in this game.
I did notice the difference when I took graduate level, however a great deal of the problem stems from the fact that funding for bleeding edge equipment is a secondary concern for many administrators. Failure to pay and overworking the professors does not help either. The graduate level molecular genetics I took was forced on a person who was also doing critical research and they crammed a full year course into a semester. It puts undue stress on students and teacher.
The concept of a simple common way to deal with data models is a process that seems to be heading towards standards which would be nice. Something like the openGL standards or blender file formats. If there were a standard way to represent complex interactive systems as even a bot script for a 3D world that could easily be shared like a language of systems interaction. I have been looking at littleb and that may evolve into a standard which can represent systems so that problems and solutions drift to the top so they can be dealt with. The vast amount of data available seems to be the problem today. There is more information than there are people trained to interpret it.
I found an open source project called 'littleb' which can be researched at littleb.org that may provide a common framework to analyze and understand these aspects of systems. If a good functional model can be made then it is easier to see how changes and evolving situations might proceed. Not enough tools exist as yet to define the points of action between molecular systems. It is certainly approaching this point and I always enjoy new topics and - converging search through noisy space - sounds like fun. Secondary electron interaction in systems which were considered to only interact with valence electrons is an interesting new area also.
It takes time for these things to filter down to the education system because of their momentum and lag. I noticed in the early days of PC development it was almost a joke to listen to college professors talk about computer design. I recently took courses in molecular genetics and though it was good for the basics, it incorporated ideas like central dogma ( DNA - RNA ) that are also not completely true. The idea that there are self-catalyzing molecules is sufficient to define a perpetual loop. On this /. topic, ( V vs V ) it does lead into something which I have wondered about for some time, which is the chemical system underpinning of genetic life, which must surely exist in the protein world.
Sadly millions of people die because of a little molecule of RNA or even their own SNP's. I don't doubt that many things are risky, the question is whether the approach is useful and valid. My opinion remains that it is an ineffective and costly process that interferes with life more than it protects it.
So you agree with me , but you want me to reveal the information which makes matters worse. I would call you Newton, but it seems your name is BoB. I agree with your assessment of the situation and perhaps it is something they already know. It isn't my job to know that. I am too lazy to look and if I Google for it, they would have the Jeopardy answer. It only serves a terrorist or further incites the TSA to show them holes and that was the premise of the parent and I was simply agreeing and accepting the constraints that I shouldn't just dump security flaws on the net anymore than security flaws in any other system just to prove my talent.