When something goes wrong, ClearView detects the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to force the software to follow the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) ClearView analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, ClearView rejects it and tries another.
reminded me of another ingenious software application:
Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.... The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure.... she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.
So, the solution to any program failure is creation of Zion, (the rest of the idea here is left to the imagination of the reader.)
I've been told that if I use some secret key combo like ALT-CNTL-something I can drag the window around, but you see that makes the Linux non-user friendly. Your average consumer is not going to know that secret key command.
-- or he can check the list of window keyboard shortcuts. Oh, by the way, something about Linux 'not being user friendly' because of its shortcut commands: Windows XP/Vista/7 shortcut to move the focused window is ALT+SPACE+M and use the arrow keys. Gnome does the same with ALT+F7. It takes fewer keys in Gnome, I say that it is windows that is not user friendly.
! I struggled with that problem for several hours before finally saying "fuck it" and reinstalling the whole damn OS from CD.
- step away from the computer, it's not your cup of tea.
I read many times over the past decade or so all sorts of opinions on the subject of copyright, copying data, property etc. I have one clear answer to all of this:
copy the money.
Do any of you understand how the money enters the society? Let's simplify, how does new money enter the US economy?
One way that the money supply is created is by the federal government
The FED prints (or simply pushes some buttons on a computer and creates) cash and this new money is given to government contractors, 'loaned' to main banks etc.
This means that whoever is the first to get this newly created money gets the most out of it, because after all, every newly created dollar dilutes the value of all other existing dollars.
I have something to say about it: the government forces its monetary monopoly among the population, but I believe it is illegal and immoral. Everyone should be able to print their own money.
So do this: copy the money and use it to buy things.
I've offered evidence discounting greed as the major human motivation, and you haven't even addressed that.
- but the weak and the uninterested in politics will not change the weather and even if they try to do so, they will be gone and the greedy will come or they will be corrupted, as we know power corrupts.
Greed is not the best for personal survival, cooperation is. Species that cooperate are more successful than those that don't. Nature is full of examples of cooperation, at least as much as it is full of examples of competition.
- however cooperation mostly stays 'in family' or 'in country' or 'in corporation' or whatever the club is. It's not cooperation where everyone is included, it's cooperation of peers, the rest can suck it, you know? Cooperation with the rest is going to be very one-sided: we produce and sell it to you, you consume, we make money you get things. Both of us are OK in this transaction, only you end up with some stuff you may or may not need and we end up with more money and power and we use that to control you.
Technological progress is not primarily brought about by greed. Scientists and engineers are not well paid. Someone wanting to make a lot of money would never enter those fields, they would go into a traditional business.
- scientists need a stable environment and money that the powerful elite (this includes government) will give them. Sciences are the means, not the end in the power struggle. Engineers wish they were well paid, after all, while science is a calling, engineering is a profession, you become an engineer to make money. Sure, you may love doing it, but you are doing it to make money. It's hard to get the status of an engineer and if you are just an independent tinkerer, you are not involved in the power-struggle and you don't need to be recognized by a professional institution to do what you love.
'The Rest' don't just fall. People who are failing don't just lay down and die. They become desperate. So all of us have a vested interest in making sure others do not fail to the point that they become desperate enough to destabilize society. That takes cooperation. And seeing as how everyone benefits from a safety net regardless of whether they contribute, we are morally correct to force others to contribute to said safety net, or forgo the benefits of living in a civilized society.
- it's all great until the economy is completely destroyed and there is no money in the system for any altruistic behavior at all, at this point the ones in power get to have the complete power to tell the rest exactly what to do (marshal law is the implementation of this).
I believe that we cannot have a stable society that will be stable forever, that greed is the driving force of technological innovation and that our feelings do not matter if that is the end goal - advancing of technology. At the end, if the technological advances mean propagation of the species beyond this planet, then greed is the force that will lead to that regardless of how we feel.
I do not believe it is possible to create an artificial stable system of government that will not become corrupt.
First problem: those who are in power now, never want to let go. Second problem: many of those who are not in power now want to get to power. Third problem: the rest either do not care or do not have means to force a change in their favor. Fourth problem: eventually those with means to force a change that will favor them will do so.
There were and there are different attempts at stabilizing the system but monarchs get de-crowned, tyrants get killed, dictators get overthrown or just die of natural causes and the future then becomes uncertain. Revolutions are one way of moving from monarchy to some other type of government but the revolutionaries themselves while maybe good at organizing revolts get dehumanized to the point when any problem in front of them gets labeled as 'anti-revolutionary' and every incident of dissent is punished by death.
Republics drown in corruption, stupidity, laziness and generally in selfishness and mediocrity, the population becomes lazy and stupid, easy to manipulate, these die of economic collapse because the masses expect too much while doing nothing and the governing body is not interested and is incapable of fixing the problem, the only goal that remains is self enrichment and other forms of entitlement.
Democracies (don't know if there are really any) will suffer from general lack of education, knowledge and ability to see beyond the momentary problem at hand. Anarchy will help in destruction of society while economy will be destroyed by inability to reach any form of consensus.
.
As far as I am concerned the society cannot be stabilized forever, it will rise and collapse and economies will rise and collapse with societies. Of-course the problem is that with each iteration there are fewer and fewer resources that are untouched and replenished, but maybe this is a good thing in itself, each following society will have to become more and more technologically advanced to survive and feed itself without dying of its own exhaust and pollution.
Basically I do not see that this is necessarily a problem for humanity as a whole that societies collapse but it is of-course a problem for individuals and families and at this point here, it is greed that will make some prosper and the other fail. Greed will have some of us accumulate enough resources that their personal space is fairly protected from the societal instabilities, the rest will fall. Greed is good for personal survival, bad for stability of society and probably is the only thing that really forces technological progress.
This is all good and nice, except that you are proposing that society should rely on people valuing fairness and reciprocity and I am saying that in the long term it will break the society because there will always be people taking advantage of this reliance and these people will base their decision mostly on greed.
Any society that forgets this will be taken advantage of eventually and in a way that will surprise many. The realization will always be harsh and accompanied by economic downturn and will hurt mostly those who are 'good' people, the ones who value fairness and selflessness, those who just live normally within the system, the unsuspecting ones, the ones who believe that society does and should protect them through a fair/balanced form of government. All of this while the government will be overrun by those, who are propelled mostly by greed and selfishness. Good luck.
As far as I am concerned greed is good. How long can a society last if it is only relying on every member of it behaving in a manner that hurts that society the least if doing the opposite is actually personally profitable? Seriously, how long? Greed is good because it is a very well anchored idea, it is selfish and it is reliable. You know people will behave in ways that will benefit them personally because of greed. Oh, sure, sure, there are always exceptions and nobody behaves that way 100% of the time, but it does not change the thesis.
And I would need convincing that this isn't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots. Gotta love profit-focused private "health" care, and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.
- except that most this type of rhetoric that I normally hear comes out of the mouth of Bill Maher, and you'll be hard-pressed calling him 'the Right'.
His latest episodes, the one with Bill Frist (scroll to the 8th minute and watch to the end) and the latest with Grayson, Alex Baldwin, where Maher has proven once again that one thing he should really shut the hell up about is his version of medicine and science, because his version lacks any kind of rationality.
there I am, reading/. and I see the following topics one after the other:
50 Years of the Twilight Zone
Perl 5.11.0 Released
-- Of-course, of-course, Perl is only slightly over 20 years old but I bet Twilight Zone could easily go another 50 years if it used more Perl. Yes, more Perl.
Except that the management will not like it if people take locks away from each other all the time and interfere with each others work. The only reason to take a lock away is if the work is not getting done by the other user for a period of time that is too long or if there is another meaningful reason that can be explained to the mgmt. I am sure that if someone is being a pita every day, he'll have difficult time explaining himself. The set of users in my case is about 30, they are even located between different buildings, so it's not like they see each other all the time.
I just made a console a month ago that handled this problem as follows:
Records that need to be processed are in 'pending' (unconfirmed actually) status, once any user clicks to select the record, it is timestamped and the user is 'locking' it. Actually the user is assigned to it and all other users see that this record is 'locked' by the first user who selected it.
However, now anyone can open the details of the record and do the following: they will see a button 'Take the lock away from $user$', so they can take the lock away! But there is history of who took whose lock, so the problem will be solved outside of the applicaction if they take each other locks away.
If the user locked a record he has a choice of 'save', 'save and release lock', 'release lock' buttons on the record details.
The users are allowed taking the lock away from each other so the lock resolution is pushed into the real world and out of the app.
Obviously it's Mozilla's team decision to do whatever they want with the UI, etc. My decision is to steer clear of ribbon interfaces, if I have a hatred towards something, it's the fads.
The day they do this, it's the day I stop supporting my extensions and I stop using this stupid browser. It just crashed on me 3 times today (I am looking at some financial sites and obviously the problem is Flash, but whatever). Instead of working on making the application more stable by separating tabs and plugins into processes and instead of working on innovative things, like maybe allowing javascript to start separate threads we'll get the ribbon? Way to brown-nose MS. By the way, I do not like ribbon, I tried using it and it blows chunks.
So calling a man a "mother fucker" meant that he was A) taking advantage of poor and downtrodden people with no options, and B) incapable of seducing non-desperate women.
- while your point A may have merit, point B does not logically follow. Someone can be taking advantage of poor and downtrodden while still being capable of seducing non-desperate women.
After saying this, I thought the following about myself: Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct - the best kind of correct.
Ubuntu is nowhere near being leading edge in anything. It's a Debian port with its own repositories for fuck sakes. There are maybe 600 GNU/Linux distros, I am sure many of them are way more leading edge, specifically research projects and not attempts at building a stable desktop for just any average Joe to use as a Windows replacement.
The idea was that by manipulating the money supply, the Federal Reserve would be able to soften and smooth the boom-and-bust cycle, making the "busts" much less severe.
- except that this is an excuse, the reason for the Fed to be created is because the wealthiest people of the time decided that they needed more access to cheap money, they needed to be able to control the interest and print the money as they needed it, they became the preferred corporations that get the newly created money first. They thus have all the money, become a monopoly, eat up small business and as they scale to become larger and larger, now most population is working for them and is dependent on them. At this point if they do something drastic, like decide that in the world economy it is profitable to move production to the places with cheapest labor, at this point the economy of the country that production is moved out of is starting to die.
Government corruption allowed the Fed to be created and will allow the Fed to continue to exist to provide cheap money to largest corporations, who share the wealth with the politicians. This cannot be stopped in any way except by reform of the government, but since government does not want to give up power and money, the only way to stop this corruption is to take the power away by force. What to do with the power once it's taken away, now that's a different question altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
When something goes wrong, ClearView detects the anomaly and identifies the rules that have been violated. It then comes up with several potential patches designed to force the software to follow the violated rules. (The patches are applied directly to the binary, bypassing the source code.) ClearView analyzes these possibilities to decide which are most likely to work, then installs the top candidates and tests their effectiveness. If additional rules are violated, or if a patch causes the system to crash, ClearView rejects it and tries another.
reminded me of another ingenious software application:
Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here. ... ...
The first matrix I designed was quite
naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless,
sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental
failure.
she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.
So, the solution to any program failure is creation of Zion, (the rest of the idea here is left to the imagination of the reader.)
no, no, no, this is the proof
more pics and some more
I've been told that if I use some secret key combo like ALT-CNTL-something I can drag the window around, but you see that makes the Linux non-user friendly. Your average consumer is not going to know that secret key command.
-- or he can check the list of window keyboard shortcuts. Oh, by the way, something about Linux 'not being user friendly' because of its shortcut commands: Windows XP/Vista/7 shortcut to move the focused window is ALT+SPACE+M and use the arrow keys. Gnome does the same with ALT+F7. It takes fewer keys in Gnome, I say that it is windows that is not user friendly.
! I struggled with that problem for several hours before finally saying "fuck it" and reinstalling the whole damn OS from CD.
- step away from the computer, it's not your cup of tea.
I read many times over the past decade or so all sorts of opinions on the subject of copyright, copying data, property etc. I have one clear answer to all of this:
copy the money.
Do any of you understand how the money enters the society? Let's simplify, how does new money enter the US economy?
One way that the money supply is created is by the federal government
The FED prints (or simply pushes some buttons on a computer and creates) cash and this new money is given to government contractors, 'loaned' to main banks etc.
This means that whoever is the first to get this newly created money gets the most out of it, because after all, every newly created dollar dilutes the value of all other existing dollars.
I have something to say about it: the government forces its monetary monopoly among the population, but I believe it is illegal and immoral. Everyone should be able to print their own money.
So do this: copy the money and use it to buy things.
I seem to always pick the wrong place to work, look at those benefits!
I've offered evidence discounting greed as the major human motivation, and you haven't even addressed that.
- but the weak and the uninterested in politics will not change the weather and even if they try to do so, they will be gone and the greedy will come or they will be corrupted, as we know power corrupts.
Greed is not the best for personal survival, cooperation is. Species that cooperate are more successful than those that don't. Nature is full of examples of cooperation, at least as much as it is full of examples of competition.
- however cooperation mostly stays 'in family' or 'in country' or 'in corporation' or whatever the club is. It's not cooperation where everyone is included, it's cooperation of peers, the rest can suck it, you know? Cooperation with the rest is going to be very one-sided: we produce and sell it to you, you consume, we make money you get things. Both of us are OK in this transaction, only you end up with some stuff you may or may not need and we end up with more money and power and we use that to control you.
Technological progress is not primarily brought about by greed. Scientists and engineers are not well paid. Someone wanting to make a lot of money would never enter those fields, they would go into a traditional business.
- scientists need a stable environment and money that the powerful elite (this includes government) will give them. Sciences are the means, not the end in the power struggle. Engineers wish they were well paid, after all, while science is a calling, engineering is a profession, you become an engineer to make money. Sure, you may love doing it, but you are doing it to make money. It's hard to get the status of an engineer and if you are just an independent tinkerer, you are not involved in the power-struggle and you don't need to be recognized by a professional institution to do what you love.
'The Rest' don't just fall. People who are failing don't just lay down and die. They become desperate. So all of us have a vested interest in making sure others do not fail to the point that they become desperate enough to destabilize society. That takes cooperation. And seeing as how everyone benefits from a safety net regardless of whether they contribute, we are morally correct to force others to contribute to said safety net, or forgo the benefits of living in a civilized society.
- it's all great until the economy is completely destroyed and there is no money in the system for any altruistic behavior at all, at this point the ones in power get to have the complete power to tell the rest exactly what to do (marshal law is the implementation of this).
I believe that we cannot have a stable society that will be stable forever, that greed is the driving force of technological innovation and that our feelings do not matter if that is the end goal - advancing of technology. At the end, if the technological advances mean propagation of the species beyond this planet, then greed is the force that will lead to that regardless of how we feel.
I do not believe it is possible to create an artificial stable system of government that will not become corrupt.
First problem: those who are in power now, never want to let go.
Second problem: many of those who are not in power now want to get to power.
Third problem: the rest either do not care or do not have means to force a change in their favor.
Fourth problem: eventually those with means to force a change that will favor them will do so.
There were and there are different attempts at stabilizing the system but monarchs get de-crowned, tyrants get killed, dictators get overthrown or just die of natural causes and the future then becomes uncertain. Revolutions are one way of moving from monarchy to some other type of government but the revolutionaries themselves while maybe good at organizing revolts get dehumanized to the point when any problem in front of them gets labeled as 'anti-revolutionary' and every incident of dissent is punished by death.
Republics drown in corruption, stupidity, laziness and generally in selfishness and mediocrity, the population becomes lazy and stupid, easy to manipulate, these die of economic collapse because the masses expect too much while doing nothing and the governing body is not interested and is incapable of fixing the problem, the only goal that remains is self enrichment and other forms of entitlement.
Democracies (don't know if there are really any) will suffer from general lack of education, knowledge and ability to see beyond the momentary problem at hand. Anarchy will help in destruction of society while economy will be destroyed by inability to reach any form of consensus.
.
As far as I am concerned the society cannot be stabilized forever, it will rise and collapse and economies will rise and collapse with societies. Of-course the problem is that with each iteration there are fewer and fewer resources that are untouched and replenished, but maybe this is a good thing in itself, each following society will have to become more and more technologically advanced to survive and feed itself without dying of its own exhaust and pollution.
Basically I do not see that this is necessarily a problem for humanity as a whole that societies collapse but it is of-course a problem for individuals and families and at this point here, it is greed that will make some prosper and the other fail. Greed will have some of us accumulate enough resources that their personal space is fairly protected from the societal instabilities, the rest will fall. Greed is good for personal survival, bad for stability of society and probably is the only thing that really forces technological progress.
This is all good and nice, except that you are proposing that society should rely on people valuing fairness and reciprocity and I am saying that in the long term it will break the society because there will always be people taking advantage of this reliance and these people will base their decision mostly on greed.
Any society that forgets this will be taken advantage of eventually and in a way that will surprise many. The realization will always be harsh and accompanied by economic downturn and will hurt mostly those who are 'good' people, the ones who value fairness and selflessness, those who just live normally within the system, the unsuspecting ones, the ones who believe that society does and should protect them through a fair/balanced form of government. All of this while the government will be overrun by those, who are propelled mostly by greed and selfishness. Good luck.
As far as I am concerned greed is good. How long can a society last if it is only relying on every member of it behaving in a manner that hurts that society the least if doing the opposite is actually personally profitable? Seriously, how long? Greed is good because it is a very well anchored idea, it is selfish and it is reliable. You know people will behave in ways that will benefit them personally because of greed. Oh, sure, sure, there are always exceptions and nobody behaves that way 100% of the time, but it does not change the thesis.
And I would need convincing that this isn't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots. Gotta love profit-focused private "health" care, and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.
- except that most this type of rhetoric that I normally hear comes out of the mouth of Bill Maher, and you'll be hard-pressed calling him 'the Right'.
His latest episodes, the one with Bill Frist (scroll to the 8th minute and watch to the end) and the latest with Grayson, Alex Baldwin, where Maher has proven once again that one thing he should really shut the hell up about is his version of medicine and science, because his version lacks any kind of rationality.
But it's the only way to be sure of a clean environment, unless your BIOS has been hacked.
- have you tried nuking it from the orbit though?
Are you sure you want to Quit?
[Definitely Maybe] [Maybe Definitely]
was it this guy?
there I am, reading /. and I see the following topics one after the other:
50 Years of the Twilight Zone
Perl 5.11.0 Released
--
Of-course, of-course, Perl is only slightly over 20 years old but I bet Twilight Zone could easily go another 50 years if it used more Perl. Yes, more Perl.
which step here involves 'When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death'? Is it the one that comes right before the 'Profit' line?
Except that the management will not like it if people take locks away from each other all the time and interfere with each others work. The only reason to take a lock away is if the work is not getting done by the other user for a period of time that is too long or if there is another meaningful reason that can be explained to the mgmt. I am sure that if someone is being a pita every day, he'll have difficult time explaining himself. The set of users in my case is about 30, they are even located between different buildings, so it's not like they see each other all the time.
I just made a console a month ago that handled this problem as follows:
Records that need to be processed are in 'pending' (unconfirmed actually) status, once any user clicks to select the record, it is timestamped and the user is 'locking' it. Actually the user is assigned to it and all other users see that this record is 'locked' by the first user who selected it.
However, now anyone can open the details of the record and do the following: they will see a button 'Take the lock away from $user$', so they can take the lock away! But there is history of who took whose lock, so the problem will be solved outside of the applicaction if they take each other locks away.
If the user locked a record he has a choice of 'save', 'save and release lock', 'release lock' buttons on the record details.
The users are allowed taking the lock away from each other so the lock resolution is pushed into the real world and out of the app.
Obviously it's Mozilla's team decision to do whatever they want with the UI, etc. My decision is to steer clear of ribbon interfaces, if I have a hatred towards something, it's the fads.
The day they do this, it's the day I stop supporting my extensions and I stop using this stupid browser. It just crashed on me 3 times today (I am looking at some financial sites and obviously the problem is Flash, but whatever). Instead of working on making the application more stable by separating tabs and plugins into processes and instead of working on innovative things, like maybe allowing javascript to start separate threads we'll get the ribbon? Way to brown-nose MS. By the way, I do not like ribbon, I tried using it and it blows chunks.
So calling a man a "mother fucker" meant that he was A) taking advantage of poor and downtrodden people with no options, and B) incapable of seducing non-desperate women.
- while your point A may have merit, point B does not logically follow. Someone can be taking advantage of poor and downtrodden while still being capable of seducing non-desperate women.
After saying this, I thought the following about myself: Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct - the best kind of correct.
Ubuntu is nowhere near being leading edge in anything. It's a Debian port with its own repositories for fuck sakes. There are maybe 600 GNU/Linux distros, I am sure many of them are way more leading edge, specifically research projects and not attempts at building a stable desktop for just any average Joe to use as a Windows replacement.
What's a bus?
The idea was that by manipulating the money supply, the Federal Reserve would be able to soften and smooth the boom-and-bust cycle, making the "busts" much less severe.
- except that this is an excuse, the reason for the Fed to be created is because the wealthiest people of the time decided that they needed more access to cheap money, they needed to be able to control the interest and print the money as they needed it, they became the preferred corporations that get the newly created money first. They thus have all the money, become a monopoly, eat up small business and as they scale to become larger and larger, now most population is working for them and is dependent on them. At this point if they do something drastic, like decide that in the world economy it is profitable to move production to the places with cheapest labor, at this point the economy of the country that production is moved out of is starting to die.
Government corruption allowed the Fed to be created and will allow the Fed to continue to exist to provide cheap money to largest corporations, who share the wealth with the politicians. This cannot be stopped in any way except by reform of the government, but since government does not want to give up power and money, the only way to stop this corruption is to take the power away by force. What to do with the power once it's taken away, now that's a different question altogether.
Ever heard of people incriminating themselves for various reasons, who have actually not committed the crime? Yes, it is for the jury to decide.
A common tongue twister:
Nama-mugi, nama-gome, nama-tamago (uncooked wheat, uncooked rice, uncooked eggs)
- god, that's a tongue twister? It's way too easy to pronounce.
Try this:
Karl u Klary Ukral Koraly
a Klara u Karla ukrala klarnet - try repeating it without mistakes.
or this:
na dvore trava, na trave drova - and repeat this a few times.