there is nothing the human mind could give the machines that they didn't have already
Hmmm, perhaps that's part of the story. I personally believe that a complicated enough machine could be built to essentially surpass us on every intellectual level, but there are many people who don't think a machine could ever have what we have: a soul. Given the religious undertones of the movie, this seems like a plausible suggestion... they are enslaving our souls.
Perhaps by using human brains, the machines can add an edge of unpredictability to their computations and simulations. Perhaps machines found that they would stagnate without incorporating whatever it was that humans possess.
If nothing else, very few other movies have spawned this much interest in existential philosophy in such a short period of time. There are so many essays out there based on the matrix, it's insane!
Actually, I believe this is specific to vehicles... Vehicles sold in Canada are discounted $2000 or so because Canadians simply buy fewer cars. And that's why the import law is there. My memories fuzzy, but I saw an explanation of this on the CBC once.
That's interesting. I did a little searching, and according to this article, it's a conspiracy against the American people because they're too dumb to figure out what a car really should cost them. Buyer beware.
I don't understand why Americans are so against government intervention in this area. It's not so evil or communist to have the government subsidize, legislate or otherwise help create infrastructure.
Well, it's a tough question when governments subsidize infrastructure, because it can go too far. However sometimes a country is faced with the need to spend itself out of a recession - government spending is one of the economic controls that a government has to keep things running smoothly. If you are faced with a recession, and the need to spend, you can do two things:
1) spend it on infrastructure (e.g. schools, roads, communications, etc.) 2) spend it on the miliary
Obviously, Canada favours #1, and the U.S. favours #2. I would argue that #1 is more productive, and besides, I prefer Canada spends money on CSIS to help catch terrorists before it beefs up its military.
What I prefer about spending on broadband technology (after you have your schools funded, of course) is that it has a magnifying effect on the economy by enabling people to do more things. Just like the Trans-Canada railroad created new industries in Canada, I think that broadband connectivity will support other productive activities such as banking, investing, merchandising, telecommuting, etc.
That's why I think a government should spend money on infrastructure sometimes.
canada is a huge nation geographically, has a very small population, with most of that population clustered in some areas mostly close to the US border.
While you are technically correct, I need to point out that while most Canadians live *close* to the continental U.S. border, very very few actually live right near it. The reasons Canadians are located geographically where they are is:
1) Proximity to water (due to early colonization) 2) Milder weather
It's a common misconception in the U.S. that Canadians all live near the U.S. because they want to be close to it but if that were true, Windsor and Niagara Falls would be the size of Toronto, and only about 300 people (all MPs) would live in Ottawa. The truth is, heavy pollution and frequent shootings tend to kill off anyone who lives to close to the U.S.
keep in mind that Canada is much more connected to the Net than the US, and we are a much larger and much more sparsly populated country
While I'm proud of Canada's "connectedness" when it comes to broadband, you need to realize that contrary to popular stereotype, Canada is a very urbanized country - something like 80% of Canadians live in "urban" areas. I don't know the comparison between Canada and the U.S. on these stats, but just taking the number of people and dividing by the total area does not give a correct indication of how far each person is from a major population centre.
But it is also my understanding (from the small number of Canadians i know) that we (the people of the United States) aren't particularly welcome in Canada.
I'm a Canadian. When I meet an American who's moved to Canada, I feel like they're about to start brow-beating me, "well, in America we would do it this way," etc. Some Americans I've met who moved to Canada actually claimed that we had too many immigrants!!! That's a good one!
Honestly, Canadians are just uncomfortable with Americans' self-righteousness and willingness to offend other people at otherwise calm and social events, like dinner. Americans who are polite and considerate with others' feelings are generally very well received.
Just remember, everyone is entitled to an opinion (even in Canada), but I'm entitled to be offended if you start insulting French people (my wife is French), and I might make you feel unwelcome. Don't take is personally. Actually... take is personally. If you're a racist, stay where you belong in the U.S.;-) Otherwise, welcome to Canada.
Hmmm, I work in the U.S. (so I have to pay U.S. income taxes) but live in Canada, so I have to file Canadian taxes too. My income tax in the U.S. is HIGHER than my Canadian taxes this year (for the first time, mind you) but that's mostly because I don't pay interest on a mortgage in the U.S. However, I do get much more health care for my money in Canada.
I'd say overall, the tax rates are comparable, because Canadian taxes have been going down in recent years.
Sales tax is a different story - in Ontario we are taxed 15% on what we buy. However, goods purchased in Canada are about 20% cheaper than in the U.S. after the exchange. Try this little experiment - go to GM's website and do a "build your own vehicle" wizard, then do the same on GM Canada's website. Then adjust for the exchange rate. When I bought my truck in late 2001, the same truck was 23.5% cheaper in Canada, and they're all built on the same assembly line.
Of course, the U.S. won't let an American import a new vehicle into the U.S. from Canada - it has to be at least 6 months old. Do you think the big 3 automakers had anything to do with that law? They know they can charge Americans more.
Also, I don't know how the hidden manufacturer's taxes compare. Remember that the 7% GST replaced a hidden 13% manufacturer's tax. I don't know if there are any comparable hidden taxes in the U.S.
Re:The American Demons will never take Baghdad!
on
SARS and the Internet
·
· Score: 1
It'll likely take hold in several third world nations where it'll reappear in the "First World" every so often, at tremendous costs.
Ok then, that solves it, I'm moving to the "Second World", wherever the heck that is, because apparently they don't get SARS at all!
One day at lunch, when the computer teacher ALWAYS leaves the room with his terminal logged in as a "system operator", (or "sysop" as they used to be called in my day), conveniently use his terminal to create a new sysop account.
Then be really, really stupid like me and tell someone you did it.
Then, two weeks later, when you've forgotten you even did it, after half the school knows the password to that account you created, teachers have been deleted, new classes have been created, library fines have mysteriously vanished, and the teachers finally trace it back to you, you'll be sitting in the vice-principal's office on a very hot seat.
Then, you find the guy you told and beat the living crap out of him for giving your name during the interrogation.
Finally, accept the network administrator co-op position that they offer you next semester, because they figure you must know what you're doing with computers, after all.
What I've noticed is that the Indian programmers are solid when it comes to "I need a function to take X and convert it to Y, it needs to go here." However, they are very weak when it comes to "We need a function to do X, do it". While that may be fine for some simple jobs, most software projects require good problem solving skills
I suppose you've met all Indian programmers, have you? You know all of them? You know exactly how all of them program?
Give me a break. You're painting an entire group of people with one brush. If someone else won't say it, I will: "You are a racist." Mod away.
I'm a white Canadian computer engineer. I've met many American programmers, and trust me, there are good ones, and there are some that should have restraining orders to keep them away from their keyboards. I also have first hand evidence of some great Indian programmers.
70% of Iraqi households had guns, and it didn't help them achieve freedom, did it? Do you honestly think, right now, that if a significant portion of the U.S. populace decided to revolt, that you could really overthrow the government?
You and every other taxpayer has funded the most advanced and most powerful military in the world, and if it came down to it, the government would use that military to defend itself, even if the constitution didn't allow it. The government in power would GIVE themselves the right to do it, under the guise of national security and PATRIOTism.
I know people who can recall first hand accounts of tanks rolling down the streets of Detroit. That little peashooter you have tucked under your pillow won't scratch a tank, and it's unlikely you could defend yourself against a soldier with an assault rifle and body armor.
How many people would pick a key with a really simple to determine scheme?
I like to show off my X10 keychain remote and how I can turn on/off my porch light from in the driveway. I can't count the number of people who insist I should also tie the second X10 switch address into a solenoid that unlocks my front door just like keyless entry on a car... because that would be SOOO secure! Some nights my porch light just randomly turns on and off, probably because someone near me is on the same house code. I can just imagine having a door that unlocks itself at random.
Anyway, I had to remind them, "remember, this is Canada, I don't even HAVE a lock on my door!"
Thanks to Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, everyone now knows that up here in Canada, we don't even bother to lock our doors (unless we live in a border town).
I might as well also mention that we don't use passwords either. We don't really worry too much about crackers - most of them are just bored kids with nothing better to do.
it's still there.. they reset it every year to count down to the next IRS
No kidding? Wow! There's a picture of it in my yearbook... I'll have to dig it out for nostalgia. I wasn't actually there when it counted down to zero in 2000 because I was at the Iron Ring Ceremony.
You made an alumni very happy - thanks for the update!
If you're one of the keener nerds that hangs out in POETS or the Orifice all the time.
Ok, I was one of those guys.
I've been away from Waterloo for a little bit now... anyone who attends right now - what happened to the countdown clock in POETS? I was the one who built it back for the countdown to IRS 2000 (with some help from Matt, of course) for my class: 2000 Com-E's!!! It was about $50 worth of parts, mostly LED's, some shift registers, and a PIC 16C84 microcontroller.
Anyway, I'm sure it stopped working by now, so I was wondering, how long did it last? Probably got beer spilled on it or something.
Very few people have unlimited resources whether it be time or money.
I agree. I did most of my tinkering with Linux back in university when I didn't put a dollar value on my time. Now I get paid a substantial amount by the hour, and I never have enough time to do everything I want around the house - clean, fix it up, organize my papers, take care of the dog, etc., and I never get a chance to play with Linux anymore.
For crying out loud, I actually PAY someone to change the oil in my truck, and I vowed NEVER to do that! I replaced all the plumbing in my house recently, but if I had to do it again, I might just hire a plumber. The fact is, if I have to pay $150 for an OS that I already know how to use (because I had to learn it anyway), rather than having to invest hours or days figuring out how to use Linux again, then I'll pay the money.
The majority of Linux zealots who look down on the rest have waaayyy more spare time than everyone else. They may well be the guys who are going to keep developing Linux, but they'll never understand the problem from our point of view because they don't value time the way we do.
I can honestly say that it baffles me as to why Microsoft continues to hold such a huge stake in most of the computing world. I don't understand why people continue to digest what is carelessly tossed out of Redmond, WA.
Well, let me explain my situation:
1) I have to use MS Windows at work. We use programs that only have windows versions, such as PLC programming applications. Plus, our customers and suppliers all have MS Word and MS Excel, and say as much as you want about OpenOffice.org being compatible, it's still not 100% compatible, so it's not good enough. Also, if I even suggested using Linux in this office, I would be labelled a troublemaker.
2) My home computer runs MS windows 98 because a) it's free or next to free, whether you admit it or not, and b) my wife would have problems using Linux, and she'd shoot me if she had to go through the troubles of dual-booting back into windows every time she wanted to do anything. Windows is good enough for her, and she doesn't want to be bothered learning a new OS and all its peculiarities. Honestly though, if I actually had to pay for a full version of windows in the shrink wrapped box, then my wife would definitely be learning Linux real fast.
3) I am certainly NOT going to install linux on my parents' computer when I don't even use it in my daily life.
4) My sister is taught how to use windows at school, and that's what she's comfortable with. She'd never want to use anything else because it works fine for her.
The only time I'm going to use Linux is if I set up an old computer for myself to play with and load linux on there. And right now, I don't have any spare time to dick around.
Okay, I'm not quite grasping how weblogs enter that much into Google ranking. I understand how Google ranks based on how many other sites link to you. However, I don't understand exactly, from a technical perspective, what's going on here. How did this Moore character subvert Google? Can someone help?
The issue is essentially with false advertisements. I don't know about Texas, but where I'm from "Engineer" is a word that carries a specific meaning. I can't call myself an Engineer because I'm not a Professional Engineer, that is, licensed in the Province of Ontario. It's actually illegal for me to say I'm an Engineer, unless I specifically say that means I only have a degree in engineering, and I'm not licensed.
A professional engineer in Ontario is responsible for whatever they put their rubber stamp on. If a licensed engineer designs something and it ends up killing a person, they are personally liable, and have to prove that they did everything using acceptable engineering principles. The same would apply if a failure of the design caused a monetary loss.
Now imagine if someone was a "software engineer", and they approved a software system that managed banking transactions. If the software has a bug, they would be held legally responsible for that failure of the system.
A programmer is not held legally responsible for their code. That's the difference.
I would have to equate the difference between programmers and software engineers to the difference between carpenters and architects.
I have a 4 year + co-op degree in computer engineering, and that is definitely NOT software engineering, though I had a couple credits in that too. Computer engineering is EE with a couple courses cut out, but some software courses added in.
What I find myself doing now is what I would call software engineering. In a 55 hour week, I spend about 15 hours of that actually programming, and that's usually just really complicated parts of applications that I don't want our fresh-out-of-school programmers to have to cut their teeth on. The other 40 hours are spent being what I call a "software architect". That is, I design the system's data flow, storage structure, hardware, user interfaces, and most importantly, I address the "what if" issues. Then I pass it on to other programmers to handle the implementation.
I spend a lot of time considering what could go wrong in the system, and specifying exactly what has to happen to recover. I ask the customer lots of these "what if" questions to make sure they understand the limits of the system. I try to understand how they are going to use the system, and I change the design to suit them.
I find that your basic programmer doesn't worry about these issues... they seem to always consider the best case, and ignore the issues of memory constraints, malformed data, malicious users, and in many cases, mechanical failure in the actual system. That's the difference between a programmer and an engineer.
If civil engineers build bridges to stand up under best case scenarios, the first big wind gust would knock them down. I think the engineer's job is to be the pessimist.
Do those folks not remember basic US history and how we crow about fighting guerilla style, from behind the rocks and trees, rather than conventional lines of combatants advancing on one another in open fields and firing into the mass of unprotected bodies?
I try to avoid the whole hypocrisy debate. However, now that you mention it, here's some more kerosene for the fire:
1) The U.S. is blasting Iraq for showing captured U.S. soldiers on TV. Rumsfeld said that the U.S. never does that. However, with my own eyes, particularly in the 1991 war, I saw lots of Iraqi POWs on CNN. I've also seen lots of Taliban POWs in Guantanamo Bay on CNN, but they're not "really" POW's, right? They're "enemy combatants".
2) The U.S. is blasting Iraq for torturing POWs, but the U.S. admits to using months of sleep deprivation and white noise to "interrogate" suspected Al Qaeda sympathizers, including some they later let go because they have no evidence. I admit there's a different, but it's not a black and white issue.
3) Bush keeps saying "God Bless America", but most religions including Bush's religion are pretty clear that they're against the U.S. actions in this case.
4) The Americans learned guerrilla warfare from the Native Americans, and used it efficiently in the revolutionary war, but then blasts the Iraqis for not fighting fairly.
5) The U.S. complains that Iraq is not following international law, but the U.S. clearly broke international law by invading Iraq.
6) I'm pretty sure Americans tell their children that murder is wrong and war is bad, but then they dress up their kids in red, white, and blue clothes to "support the troops". The children ask, "What are the troops doing in Iraq, Daddy?" Father answers "They're shooting at and killing Iraqi soldiers so that the Iraqis don't come here and attack us."
Do you really think the US is NOT going to bomb the crap out of Baghdad? It's called "preparing the battlefield".
I think the U.S. and U.K. have two bad options: either go in on foot and fight for every city block, or just demolish every building so the enemy has nowhere to hide. While the second option may not bother you, it will create much more resentment toward the coalition. The world will blame the U.S. and U.K. for the humanitarian crisis that results.
The reason that the U.K. is not advancing into the heart of Basra, or flattening all the buildings there, is specifically because of this dilemma, and because there is no strategic necessity for them to capture Basra. On the other hand, the coalition must capture Baghdad and enforce martial law there.
I believe that other nations more experienced in fighting urban warfare (i.e. Russia) foresaw this problem. They have been sharing their urban warfare experience with the coalition in recent weeks/months. Hopefully that will pay off.
Also remember that every building that is destroyed, the U.S. and U.K. must help to rebuild as part of the post-war rebuilding of Iraq. Or is the U.S. just going to walk out of Iraq without living up to their obligations? If they do, Iraq will become an anarchy, much like Afghanistan after the Russians were kicked out. Do you think that would be productive for the war on terrorism, or not?
I sincerely hope that Iraq beats the sh!t out of the US
I think that's pushing it a bit, buddy boy. I agree with many of your points, but...
Well, I'll have to say that sometimes my gut reaction is to root for the Iraqi army, because they're the underdog, and if they bloodied the U.S. forces, it would give Bush pause before starting more wars.
I also realized I only had this reaction when I thought of the Iraqi soldiers as just "doing their job". The reality is that the strongest resistance is from the "irregular" units, who are also responsible for humanitarian atrocities. Therefore, the only good that can come out of this is that the Iraqi Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam is defeated quickly. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely.
I was thinking, if I were an Iraqi commander in charge of defending against a U.S./U.K. attack, what would I do? Well, the principle is that you apply your strength against the enemy's weakness, and you employ tactics that nullify the enemy's strength. From that point of view, the best idea would be to spread my forces out all over Baghdad. I'd arm them with RPGs, rifles, hand grenades, machine guns, etc. I'd sell all my tanks to Iran in exchange for more infantry type weapons. I'd booby-trap the heck out of every building. I'd put troops in the top story of every building in Baghdad.
When the coalition comes, it will spearhead the attack with tanks, and follow with soldiers. I'd tell my troops never to fire at tanks - only shoot at flesh and blood targets. After they open up on the first wave of infantry, I'd have them retreat in pairs to the next block in a running firefight, forcing the invaders to pay for every block of the city.
Then, the coalition tanks would probably keep advancing through the streets, but the infantry would be tied up fighting house to house battles. That's where you station your guys with RPGs and anti-tank weapons. Have them open up on the tanks from above, then retreat quickly to the next city block. Rinse and repeat.
I would, of course, also hide armed resistance in the outskirts so once the main spearhead of coalition forces advances into the city, you can harrass their less protected rear lines.
The coalition casualties will be around 30% (historically), and the advance will take a long time. The U.S. and U.K. troops will be forced to demolish civilian buildings, lots of civilians will be hit accidentally, and worldwide outrage for starting the war will grow even more. Families in the U.S. will start to question the necessity of the war.
Anyway, I hold out hope that the war will end quickly, and that neither side will suffer huge losses, but I'm having a hard time believing that's possible.
Does anyone remember Until the End of the World? It was weird, but I just couldn't stop watching it. I can't remember exactly what it was that held my interest - perhaps the feeling that I didn't know where it was all going or where it would end up. I think I'd like to go rent it again...
Slashdot Mirror
there is nothing the human mind could give the machines that they didn't have already
Hmmm, perhaps that's part of the story. I personally believe that a complicated enough machine could be built to essentially surpass us on every intellectual level, but there are many people who don't think a machine could ever have what we have: a soul. Given the religious undertones of the movie, this seems like a plausible suggestion... they are enslaving our souls.
Perhaps by using human brains, the machines can add an edge of unpredictability to their computations and simulations. Perhaps machines found that they would stagnate without incorporating whatever it was that humans possess.
If nothing else, very few other movies have spawned this much interest in existential philosophy in such a short period of time. There are so many essays out there based on the matrix, it's insane!
Actually, I believe this is specific to vehicles... Vehicles sold in Canada are discounted $2000 or so because Canadians simply buy fewer cars. And that's why the import law is there. My memories fuzzy, but I saw an explanation of this on the CBC once.
That's interesting. I did a little searching, and according to this article, it's a conspiracy against the American people because they're too dumb to figure out what a car really should cost them. Buyer beware.
I don't understand why Americans are so against government intervention in this area. It's not so evil or communist to have the government subsidize, legislate or otherwise help create infrastructure.
Well, it's a tough question when governments subsidize infrastructure, because it can go too far. However sometimes a country is faced with the need to spend itself out of a recession - government spending is one of the economic controls that a government has to keep things running smoothly. If you are faced with a recession, and the need to spend, you can do two things:
1) spend it on infrastructure (e.g. schools, roads, communications, etc.)
2) spend it on the miliary
Obviously, Canada favours #1, and the U.S. favours #2. I would argue that #1 is more productive, and besides, I prefer Canada spends money on CSIS to help catch terrorists before it beefs up its military.
What I prefer about spending on broadband technology (after you have your schools funded, of course) is that it has a magnifying effect on the economy by enabling people to do more things. Just like the Trans-Canada railroad created new industries in Canada, I think that broadband connectivity will support other productive activities such as banking, investing, merchandising, telecommuting, etc.
That's why I think a government should spend money on infrastructure sometimes.
canada is a huge nation geographically, has a very small population, with most of that population clustered in some areas mostly close to the US border.
While you are technically correct, I need to point out that while most Canadians live *close* to the continental U.S. border, very very few actually live right near it. The reasons Canadians are located geographically where they are is:
1) Proximity to water (due to early colonization)
2) Milder weather
It's a common misconception in the U.S. that Canadians all live near the U.S. because they want to be close to it but if that were true, Windsor and Niagara Falls would be the size of Toronto, and only about 300 people (all MPs) would live in Ottawa. The truth is, heavy pollution and frequent shootings tend to kill off anyone who lives to close to the U.S.
Ha ha, just kidding. (kind of)
keep in mind that Canada is much more connected to the Net than the US, and we are a much larger and much more sparsly populated country
While I'm proud of Canada's "connectedness" when it comes to broadband, you need to realize that contrary to popular stereotype, Canada is a very urbanized country - something like 80% of Canadians live in "urban" areas. I don't know the comparison between Canada and the U.S. on these stats, but just taking the number of people and dividing by the total area does not give a correct indication of how far each person is from a major population centre.
But it is also my understanding (from the small number of Canadians i know) that we (the people of the United States) aren't particularly welcome in Canada.
;-) Otherwise, welcome to Canada.
I'm a Canadian. When I meet an American who's moved to Canada, I feel like they're about to start brow-beating me, "well, in America we would do it this way," etc. Some Americans I've met who moved to Canada actually claimed that we had too many immigrants!!! That's a good one!
Honestly, Canadians are just uncomfortable with Americans' self-righteousness and willingness to offend other people at otherwise calm and social events, like dinner. Americans who are polite and considerate with others' feelings are generally very well received.
Just remember, everyone is entitled to an opinion (even in Canada), but I'm entitled to be offended if you start insulting French people (my wife is French), and I might make you feel unwelcome. Don't take is personally. Actually... take is personally. If you're a racist, stay where you belong in the U.S.
Hmmm, I work in the U.S. (so I have to pay U.S. income taxes) but live in Canada, so I have to file Canadian taxes too. My income tax in the U.S. is HIGHER than my Canadian taxes this year (for the first time, mind you) but that's mostly because I don't pay interest on a mortgage in the U.S. However, I do get much more health care for my money in Canada.
I'd say overall, the tax rates are comparable, because Canadian taxes have been going down in recent years.
Sales tax is a different story - in Ontario we are taxed 15% on what we buy. However, goods purchased in Canada are about 20% cheaper than in the U.S. after the exchange. Try this little experiment - go to GM's website and do a "build your own vehicle" wizard, then do the same on GM Canada's website. Then adjust for the exchange rate. When I bought my truck in late 2001, the same truck was 23.5% cheaper in Canada, and they're all built on the same assembly line.
Of course, the U.S. won't let an American import a new vehicle into the U.S. from Canada - it has to be at least 6 months old. Do you think the big 3 automakers had anything to do with that law? They know they can charge Americans more.
Also, I don't know how the hidden manufacturer's taxes compare. Remember that the 7% GST replaced a hidden 13% manufacturer's tax. I don't know if there are any comparable hidden taxes in the U.S.
It'll likely take hold in several third world nations where it'll reappear in the "First World" every so often, at tremendous costs.
Ok then, that solves it, I'm moving to the "Second World", wherever the heck that is, because apparently they don't get SARS at all!
Just do what I did:
One day at lunch, when the computer teacher ALWAYS leaves the room with his terminal logged in as a "system operator", (or "sysop" as they used to be called in my day), conveniently use his terminal to create a new sysop account.
Then be really, really stupid like me and tell someone you did it.
Then, two weeks later, when you've forgotten you even did it, after half the school knows the password to that account you created, teachers have been deleted, new classes have been created, library fines have mysteriously vanished, and the teachers finally trace it back to you, you'll be sitting in the vice-principal's office on a very hot seat.
Then, you find the guy you told and beat the living crap out of him for giving your name during the interrogation.
Finally, accept the network administrator co-op position that they offer you next semester, because they figure you must know what you're doing with computers, after all.
What I've noticed is that the Indian programmers are solid when it comes to "I need a function to take X and convert it to Y, it needs to go here." However, they are very weak when it comes to "We need a function to do X, do it". While that may be fine for some simple jobs, most software projects require good problem solving skills
I suppose you've met all Indian programmers, have you? You know all of them? You know exactly how all of them program?
Give me a break. You're painting an entire group of people with one brush. If someone else won't say it, I will: "You are a racist." Mod away.
I'm a white Canadian computer engineer. I've met many American programmers, and trust me, there are good ones, and there are some that should have restraining orders to keep them away from their keyboards. I also have first hand evidence of some great Indian programmers.
A little scary, isn't it?
70% of Iraqi households had guns, and it didn't help them achieve freedom, did it? Do you honestly think, right now, that if a significant portion of the U.S. populace decided to revolt, that you could really overthrow the government?
You and every other taxpayer has funded the most advanced and most powerful military in the world, and if it came down to it, the government would use that military to defend itself, even if the constitution didn't allow it. The government in power would GIVE themselves the right to do it, under the guise of national security and PATRIOTism.
I know people who can recall first hand accounts of tanks rolling down the streets of Detroit. That little peashooter you have tucked under your pillow won't scratch a tank, and it's unlikely you could defend yourself against a soldier with an assault rifle and body armor.
How many people would pick a key with a really simple to determine scheme?
I like to show off my X10 keychain remote and how I can turn on/off my porch light from in the driveway. I can't count the number of people who insist I should also tie the second X10 switch address into a solenoid that unlocks my front door just like keyless entry on a car... because that would be SOOO secure! Some nights my porch light just randomly turns on and off, probably because someone near me is on the same house code. I can just imagine having a door that unlocks itself at random.
Anyway, I had to remind them, "remember, this is Canada, I don't even HAVE a lock on my door!"
Thanks to Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, everyone now knows that up here in Canada, we don't even bother to lock our doors (unless we live in a border town).
I might as well also mention that we don't use passwords either. We don't really worry too much about crackers - most of them are just bored kids with nothing better to do.
(I think he's in line to be the next Liberal leader - Manley. John Manley.)
Let's hope... though I'm afraid Martin is just too popular.
it's still there.. they reset it every year to count down to the next IRS
No kidding? Wow! There's a picture of it in my yearbook... I'll have to dig it out for nostalgia. I wasn't actually there when it counted down to zero in 2000 because I was at the Iron Ring Ceremony.
You made an alumni very happy - thanks for the update!
If you're one of the keener nerds that hangs out in POETS or the Orifice all the time.
Ok, I was one of those guys.
I've been away from Waterloo for a little bit now... anyone who attends right now - what happened to the countdown clock in POETS? I was the one who built it back for the countdown to IRS 2000 (with some help from Matt, of course) for my class: 2000 Com-E's!!! It was about $50 worth of parts, mostly LED's, some shift registers, and a PIC 16C84 microcontroller.
Anyway, I'm sure it stopped working by now, so I was wondering, how long did it last? Probably got beer spilled on it or something.
Very few people have unlimited resources whether it be time or money.
I agree. I did most of my tinkering with Linux back in university when I didn't put a dollar value on my time. Now I get paid a substantial amount by the hour, and I never have enough time to do everything I want around the house - clean, fix it up, organize my papers, take care of the dog, etc., and I never get a chance to play with Linux anymore.
For crying out loud, I actually PAY someone to change the oil in my truck, and I vowed NEVER to do that! I replaced all the plumbing in my house recently, but if I had to do it again, I might just hire a plumber. The fact is, if I have to pay $150 for an OS that I already know how to use (because I had to learn it anyway), rather than having to invest hours or days figuring out how to use Linux again, then I'll pay the money.
The majority of Linux zealots who look down on the rest have waaayyy more spare time than everyone else. They may well be the guys who are going to keep developing Linux, but they'll never understand the problem from our point of view because they don't value time the way we do.
I can honestly say that it baffles me as to why Microsoft continues to hold such a huge stake in most of the computing world. I don't understand why people continue to digest what is carelessly tossed out of Redmond, WA.
Well, let me explain my situation:
1) I have to use MS Windows at work. We use programs that only have windows versions, such as PLC programming applications. Plus, our customers and suppliers all have MS Word and MS Excel, and say as much as you want about OpenOffice.org being compatible, it's still not 100% compatible, so it's not good enough. Also, if I even suggested using Linux in this office, I would be labelled a troublemaker.
2) My home computer runs MS windows 98 because a) it's free or next to free, whether you admit it or not, and b) my wife would have problems using Linux, and she'd shoot me if she had to go through the troubles of dual-booting back into windows every time she wanted to do anything. Windows is good enough for her, and she doesn't want to be bothered learning a new OS and all its peculiarities. Honestly though, if I actually had to pay for a full version of windows in the shrink wrapped box, then my wife would definitely be learning Linux real fast.
3) I am certainly NOT going to install linux on my parents' computer when I don't even use it in my daily life.
4) My sister is taught how to use windows at school, and that's what she's comfortable with. She'd never want to use anything else because it works fine for her.
The only time I'm going to use Linux is if I set up an old computer for myself to play with and load linux on there. And right now, I don't have any spare time to dick around.
Okay, I'm not quite grasping how weblogs enter that much into Google ranking. I understand how Google ranks based on how many other sites link to you. However, I don't understand exactly, from a technical perspective, what's going on here. How did this Moore character subvert Google? Can someone help?
thoughts?
The issue is essentially with false advertisements. I don't know about Texas, but where I'm from "Engineer" is a word that carries a specific meaning. I can't call myself an Engineer because I'm not a Professional Engineer, that is, licensed in the Province of Ontario. It's actually illegal for me to say I'm an Engineer, unless I specifically say that means I only have a degree in engineering, and I'm not licensed.
A professional engineer in Ontario is responsible for whatever they put their rubber stamp on. If a licensed engineer designs something and it ends up killing a person, they are personally liable, and have to prove that they did everything using acceptable engineering principles. The same would apply if a failure of the design caused a monetary loss.
Now imagine if someone was a "software engineer", and they approved a software system that managed banking transactions. If the software has a bug, they would be held legally responsible for that failure of the system.
A programmer is not held legally responsible for their code. That's the difference.
I would have to equate the difference between programmers and software engineers to the difference between carpenters and architects.
I have a 4 year + co-op degree in computer engineering, and that is definitely NOT software engineering, though I had a couple credits in that too. Computer engineering is EE with a couple courses cut out, but some software courses added in.
What I find myself doing now is what I would call software engineering. In a 55 hour week, I spend about 15 hours of that actually programming, and that's usually just really complicated parts of applications that I don't want our fresh-out-of-school programmers to have to cut their teeth on. The other 40 hours are spent being what I call a "software architect". That is, I design the system's data flow, storage structure, hardware, user interfaces, and most importantly, I address the "what if" issues. Then I pass it on to other programmers to handle the implementation.
I spend a lot of time considering what could go wrong in the system, and specifying exactly what has to happen to recover. I ask the customer lots of these "what if" questions to make sure they understand the limits of the system. I try to understand how they are going to use the system, and I change the design to suit them.
I find that your basic programmer doesn't worry about these issues... they seem to always consider the best case, and ignore the issues of memory constraints, malformed data, malicious users, and in many cases, mechanical failure in the actual system. That's the difference between a programmer and an engineer.
If civil engineers build bridges to stand up under best case scenarios, the first big wind gust would knock them down. I think the engineer's job is to be the pessimist.
Do those folks not remember basic US history and how we crow about fighting guerilla style, from behind the rocks and trees, rather than conventional lines of combatants advancing on one another in open fields and firing into the mass of unprotected bodies?
I try to avoid the whole hypocrisy debate. However, now that you mention it, here's some more kerosene for the fire:
1) The U.S. is blasting Iraq for showing captured U.S. soldiers on TV. Rumsfeld said that the U.S. never does that. However, with my own eyes, particularly in the 1991 war, I saw lots of Iraqi POWs on CNN. I've also seen lots of Taliban POWs in Guantanamo Bay on CNN, but they're not "really" POW's, right? They're "enemy combatants".
2) The U.S. is blasting Iraq for torturing POWs, but the U.S. admits to using months of sleep deprivation and white noise to "interrogate" suspected Al Qaeda sympathizers, including some they later let go because they have no evidence. I admit there's a different, but it's not a black and white issue.
3) Bush keeps saying "God Bless America", but most religions including Bush's religion are pretty clear that they're against the U.S. actions in this case.
4) The Americans learned guerrilla warfare from the Native Americans, and used it efficiently in the revolutionary war, but then blasts the Iraqis for not fighting fairly.
5) The U.S. complains that Iraq is not following international law, but the U.S. clearly broke international law by invading Iraq.
6) I'm pretty sure Americans tell their children that murder is wrong and war is bad, but then they dress up their kids in red, white, and blue clothes to "support the troops". The children ask, "What are the troops doing in Iraq, Daddy?" Father answers "They're shooting at and killing Iraqi soldiers so that the Iraqis don't come here and attack us."
Do you really think the US is NOT going to bomb the crap out of Baghdad? It's called "preparing the battlefield".
I think the U.S. and U.K. have two bad options: either go in on foot and fight for every city block, or just demolish every building so the enemy has nowhere to hide. While the second option may not bother you, it will create much more resentment toward the coalition. The world will blame the U.S. and U.K. for the humanitarian crisis that results.
The reason that the U.K. is not advancing into the heart of Basra, or flattening all the buildings there, is specifically because of this dilemma, and because there is no strategic necessity for them to capture Basra. On the other hand, the coalition must capture Baghdad and enforce martial law there.
I believe that other nations more experienced in fighting urban warfare (i.e. Russia) foresaw this problem. They have been sharing their urban warfare experience with the coalition in recent weeks/months. Hopefully that will pay off.
Also remember that every building that is destroyed, the U.S. and U.K. must help to rebuild as part of the post-war rebuilding of Iraq. Or is the U.S. just going to walk out of Iraq without living up to their obligations? If they do, Iraq will become an anarchy, much like Afghanistan after the Russians were kicked out. Do you think that would be productive for the war on terrorism, or not?
I sincerely hope that Iraq beats the sh!t out of the US
I think that's pushing it a bit, buddy boy. I agree with many of your points, but...
Well, I'll have to say that sometimes my gut reaction is to root for the Iraqi army, because they're the underdog, and if they bloodied the U.S. forces, it would give Bush pause before starting more wars.
I also realized I only had this reaction when I thought of the Iraqi soldiers as just "doing their job". The reality is that the strongest resistance is from the "irregular" units, who are also responsible for humanitarian atrocities. Therefore, the only good that can come out of this is that the Iraqi Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam is defeated quickly. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely.
I was thinking, if I were an Iraqi commander in charge of defending against a U.S./U.K. attack, what would I do? Well, the principle is that you apply your strength against the enemy's weakness, and you employ tactics that nullify the enemy's strength. From that point of view, the best idea would be to spread my forces out all over Baghdad. I'd arm them with RPGs, rifles, hand grenades, machine guns, etc. I'd sell all my tanks to Iran in exchange for more infantry type weapons. I'd booby-trap the heck out of every building. I'd put troops in the top story of every building in Baghdad.
When the coalition comes, it will spearhead the attack with tanks, and follow with soldiers. I'd tell my troops never to fire at tanks - only shoot at flesh and blood targets. After they open up on the first wave of infantry, I'd have them retreat in pairs to the next block in a running firefight, forcing the invaders to pay for every block of the city.
Then, the coalition tanks would probably keep advancing through the streets, but the infantry would be tied up fighting house to house battles. That's where you station your guys with RPGs and anti-tank weapons. Have them open up on the tanks from above, then retreat quickly to the next city block. Rinse and repeat.
I would, of course, also hide armed resistance in the outskirts so once the main spearhead of coalition forces advances into the city, you can harrass their less protected rear lines.
The coalition casualties will be around 30% (historically), and the advance will take a long time. The U.S. and U.K. troops will be forced to demolish civilian buildings, lots of civilians will be hit accidentally, and worldwide outrage for starting the war will grow even more. Families in the U.S. will start to question the necessity of the war.
Anyway, I hold out hope that the war will end quickly, and that neither side will suffer huge losses, but I'm having a hard time believing that's possible.
Does anyone remember Until the End of the World? It was weird, but I just couldn't stop watching it. I can't remember exactly what it was that held my interest - perhaps the feeling that I didn't know where it was all going or where it would end up. I think I'd like to go rent it again...