Its depressing to see how quickly even this site's otherwise intelligent readers can transition from a discussion of ideology, philosophy and history to one based on immaterial criticisms with fewer sylables than a Sylvester Stalone film.
And I think it's depressing that 23 year-olds who obviously haven't spent much time in the real world can be so self-righteous about their selfishness.
Make no mistake, you're getting monosyllabic responses because anybody capable of responding more logically and reasonably to your points can see very clearly that it won't change your mind. If you want discussion, don't post flamebait.
If you're really legit, that's the time for the "go screw yourself" letter. If they come after you, perfect.
I don't believe this is constitutional at all. The police would require a search warrant for this kind of thing; no way in hell does some corporate legal department get to do it just cause they feel like it.
Okay, how about this: your post not only invokes Godwin's Law, it proves it. If ever there were a better example of an idiotic argument (hey, nothing was "missing" in Nazi Germany and plantation America -- except maybe the freedom and welfare and lives of the oppressed people) citing the Nazis in a desperate attempt to appear serious and thoughtful, I've not seen it.
Slashdot people tend to appreciate raw brainpower more than the average, so they can respect Gore's command of the issues.
I'd say the exact opposite. The thing that infuriates me most about Bush is that he doesn't seem to respect intelligence. He follows the old "aw shucks" kind of model, where he's perversely proud that he isn't really informed on things, and kind of pokes fun at Gore when Gore gets into details and specifics. I find this at least as offensive as Gore's exaggerations and half-truths.
If only one person voted, the government would be a de facto monarchy. The government persists so long as it is thought to be legitimate. A monarchy is widely thought to be illegitimate. Thus a monarchy does not persist.
How, exactly, will this monarchy die? Are you seriously suggesting that these citizens who can't even be bothered to push a lever every few years are going to rise up in the streets and "take back" their country?
IMO the universe *has* no "real" existence. The sine wave wasn't brought into existence by somebody's graphing calculator; in the same way, don't need a physical substrate to act out upon. What we experience is the internal consistency of a potential reality.
For death-fearers (of which I sadly remain one) there's a personal corollary to this, which I don't entirely buy and I'm sure I'll butcher. It stems from the way that photons and such seem to magically and retroactively do the right thing. The idea is that it's not the photon doing this, but your consciousness. In one possibility, impossible things happen and the universe comes to a crashing halt. But consciousness is prevented from experiencing self-negating realities, so you only see the range of possibilities that leave the universe intact. But from the perspective of the observer here, there's no difference between spontaneous universal destruction and a bullet in the head. So while other observers may witness your personal destruction, your own consciousness is prevented from those potential outcomes. Thus, you are immortal! At least from your own perspective.
Yeah, probably a load of crap. But throw it out to a group of tripping people, and it's highly entertaining...
Why does Brin find it so unfair that rich kids will, maybe, go to prep schools and will not have to work for a living? Basically, because it's NOT THEIR money. It's the government's (society's) money that their parents were allowed to hold on for a while.
Uhh, it ISN'T their money. It's the parents'. The kids didn't earn it, I don't see that they have an inherent right to it.
Where I work, the number one productivity drain *by far* is miscommunication and friction among various teams. I'm thinking of one guy in particular who is regarded as a great programmer, but he's just pissed off so many people that a lot of them don't want to work with him anymore.
It may be different in other places, but when I'm interviewing and I say an applicant won't fit in with our culture, it's usually a euphemism for I think they're an arrogant jerk who will waste time and sap morale beyond anything they bring to the table.
It would be very, very easy to rig tests so that members of racial, political, or religious minorities would not be permitted to pass, just as blacks were set up to fail literacy exams required for voting under Jim Crow laws.
Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think if we reach the point that you could actually get away with this, it's already too late.
I'm not sure how this relates, but I still play StarCraft while I've long since quit Total Annihilation and never got past the demos of umpteen other RTS games. And I think it *is* the graphics, but not in any technical sense. It can be summed up as "cool sprites." High-resolution, accurately shaded and textured models are neat, but I find they're not as fun as watching a line of hydralisks and marines slug it out in 640x480x256.
OTOH, I also find Homeworld to be wildly entertaining to watch, but the controls and overall confusion of the battles have driven me away from it.
Living in San Francisco, this has become my mantra. Yes, I'm a "tech worker" in a "dot com" -- but I'm not the one clogging the city with SUVs, buying a $2000/month loft that used to be an artist enclave, and snorting coke in fancy parties with the other Armani-suited MBAs.
What this article (all of them, in fact) doesn't get is that it's not that coke and money have gained a toehold in some new demographic -- it's the *same* demographic that made Wall Street in the 80's: money-grubbing, fancy-suited slicksters who grease palms for a living, then go party all night to forget that the world would be just as well off without them.
Why these people are considered to represent this whole industry is beyond me.
I think this would be worth pursuing aggressively if for no other reason that the secondary uses of the technology that would have to be developed. I for one would be happy to see my tax dollars spent on it.
I didn't find his counterargument to this very compelling. For humans, the main reasons for expansion and colonization are :
* trade
* population pressure
* individual drive
Considering that sub-light interstellar travel takes centuries, I don't see how it addresses any of these. Trade might be possible, but it would take a very well-entrenched interest with a profit horizon magnitudes longer than any in human history. And the other two come down to individual motivations, but until cryonics becomes standard stuff and/or near-relativistic travel is a reality, the individual is never going to be able to step off the other end.
The upshot is, I don't see any reason that every new colony established by some civilization is inevitably going to send out its own colonizing force pretty soon down the line. It makes sense as a species to have several scattered colonies, and science would compel a civilization to send out long-range observing missions, but I just don't see that a galaxy-wide empire is the natural result of a spacefaring race.
Re:Much Needed SouthPark Reference
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
I've never really gotten this about molecular computing either. It seems like the capabilities of these technologies are fundamentally different from the standard math/memory model that underlies current computing. You could create a traditional computer using these technologies, of course, but they seem capable of so much more.
The brain, for instance, is massively parallel and has processing on numerous levels, with no separation between data and processing -- this simply can't be done on a conventional computer except in the most painstaking and roundabout way (even with Lisp!). Presumably these new technologies would be more suited to such a problem.
But I've never heard anyone describe how, even in the most general terms, a science of such a thing would look. What's the molecular/genetic equivalent of binary math?
Slashdot Mirror
Its depressing to see how quickly even this site's otherwise intelligent readers can transition from a discussion of ideology, philosophy and history to one based on immaterial criticisms with fewer sylables than a Sylvester Stalone film.
And I think it's depressing that 23 year-olds who obviously haven't spent much time in the real world can be so self-righteous about their selfishness.
Make no mistake, you're getting monosyllabic responses because anybody capable of responding more logically and reasonably to your points can see very clearly that it won't change your mind. If you want discussion, don't post flamebait.
Saying NEtscape won is like saying Xerox won because PARC got everyone using GUIs.
No, no, Apple won that one.
If you're really legit, that's the time for the "go screw yourself" letter. If they come after you, perfect.
I don't believe this is constitutional at all. The police would require a search warrant for this kind of thing; no way in hell does some corporate legal department get to do it just cause they feel like it.
Okay, how about this: your post not only invokes Godwin's Law, it proves it. If ever there were a better example of an idiotic argument (hey, nothing was "missing" in Nazi Germany and plantation America -- except maybe the freedom and welfare and lives of the oppressed people) citing the Nazis in a desperate attempt to appear serious and thoughtful, I've not seen it.
As long as they do not harm any non-consenting parties
By that measure, many Christian groups in the US could reasonably be called cults.
I like it!
Slashdot people tend to appreciate raw brainpower more than the average, so they can respect Gore's command of the issues.
I'd say the exact opposite. The thing that infuriates me most about Bush is that he doesn't seem to respect intelligence. He follows the old "aw shucks" kind of model, where he's perversely proud that he isn't really informed on things, and kind of pokes fun at Gore when Gore gets into details and specifics. I find this at least as offensive as Gore's exaggerations and half-truths.
If only one person voted, the government would be a de facto monarchy. The government persists so long as it is thought to be legitimate. A monarchy is widely thought to be illegitimate. Thus a monarchy does not persist.
How, exactly, will this monarchy die? Are you seriously suggesting that these citizens who can't even be bothered to push a lever every few years are going to rise up in the streets and "take back" their country?
IMO the universe *has* no "real" existence. The sine wave wasn't brought into existence by somebody's graphing calculator; in the same way, don't need a physical substrate to act out upon. What we experience is the internal consistency of a potential reality.
For death-fearers (of which I sadly remain one) there's a personal corollary to this, which I don't entirely buy and I'm sure I'll butcher. It stems from the way that photons and such seem to magically and retroactively do the right thing. The idea is that it's not the photon doing this, but your consciousness. In one possibility, impossible things happen and the universe comes to a crashing halt. But consciousness is prevented from experiencing self-negating realities, so you only see the range of possibilities that leave the universe intact. But from the perspective of the observer here, there's no difference between spontaneous universal destruction and a bullet in the head. So while other observers may witness your personal destruction, your own consciousness is prevented from those potential outcomes. Thus, you are immortal! At least from your own perspective.
Yeah, probably a load of crap. But throw it out to a group of tripping people, and it's highly entertaining...
That's funny; I was about to say it reminded me of the dozens of probes launched in every direction at the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back.
Why does Brin find it so unfair that rich kids will, maybe, go to prep schools and will not have to work for a living? Basically, because it's NOT THEIR money. It's the government's (society's) money that their parents were allowed to hold on for a while.
Uhh, it ISN'T their money. It's the parents'. The kids didn't earn it, I don't see that they have an inherent right to it.
This is just so false.
Where I work, the number one productivity drain *by far* is miscommunication and friction among various teams. I'm thinking of one guy in particular who is regarded as a great programmer, but he's just pissed off so many people that a lot of them don't want to work with him anymore.
It may be different in other places, but when I'm interviewing and I say an applicant won't fit in with our culture, it's usually a euphemism for I think they're an arrogant jerk who will waste time and sap morale beyond anything they bring to the table.
Bush : "a child can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet"
Restil : "It has nothing to do with the internet"
I'm having a real hard time reconciling these.
Jesus, what's wrong with these people?!?! What part of "If seeing violence has any effect..." don't you understand?
IIRC, the Columbine kids tried this, and it failed. It's far easier to kill people with manufactured firearms than with homemade explosives.
It would be very, very easy to rig tests so that members of racial, political, or religious minorities would not be permitted to pass, just as blacks were set up to fail literacy exams required for voting under Jim Crow laws.
Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think if we reach the point that you could actually get away with this, it's already too late.
I'm not sure how this relates, but I still play StarCraft while I've long since quit Total Annihilation and never got past the demos of umpteen other RTS games. And I think it *is* the graphics, but not in any technical sense. It can be summed up as "cool sprites." High-resolution, accurately shaded and textured models are neat, but I find they're not as fun as watching a line of hydralisks and marines slug it out in 640x480x256.
OTOH, I also find Homeworld to be wildly entertaining to watch, but the controls and overall confusion of the battles have driven me away from it.
Wish I had points to moderate this up. Unbelievable, that the parent comment's claptrap got ranked as "Insightful."
me.foot.insert(mouth)
Not to be pedantic, but if me isn't implicit in foot, how is it implicit in mouth? Or is this some generic mouth you're putting your foot into?
Living in San Francisco, this has become my mantra. Yes, I'm a "tech worker" in a "dot com" -- but I'm not the one clogging the city with SUVs, buying a $2000/month loft that used to be an artist enclave, and snorting coke in fancy parties with the other Armani-suited MBAs.
What this article (all of them, in fact) doesn't get is that it's not that coke and money have gained a toehold in some new demographic -- it's the *same* demographic that made Wall Street in the 80's: money-grubbing, fancy-suited slicksters who grease palms for a living, then go party all night to forget that the world would be just as well off without them.
Why these people are considered to represent this whole industry is beyond me.
So I suppose that monopolies are okay, just so long as theyre based on a BSD kernel?
No, they're okay as long as they're not abused.
I think this would be worth pursuing aggressively if for no other reason that the secondary uses of the technology that would have to be developed. I for one would be happy to see my tax dollars spent on it.
I didn't find his counterargument to this very compelling. For humans, the main reasons for expansion and colonization are :
* trade
* population pressure
* individual drive
Considering that sub-light interstellar travel takes centuries, I don't see how it addresses any of these. Trade might be possible, but it would take a very well-entrenched interest with a profit horizon magnitudes longer than any in human history. And the other two come down to individual motivations, but until cryonics becomes standard stuff and/or near-relativistic travel is a reality, the individual is never going to be able to step off the other end.
The upshot is, I don't see any reason that every new colony established by some civilization is inevitably going to send out its own colonizing force pretty soon down the line. It makes sense as a species to have several scattered colonies, and science would compel a civilization to send out long-range observing missions, but I just don't see that a galaxy-wide empire is the natural result of a spacefaring race.
Screw that -- I want a monkey with five asses!
And the .doc files usually run
around a K higher than they would be in text.
Well, they were nice enough to give me a Win98 PC next to my Linux box here, so let's try it out:
python_bestiary.txt - 23KB
Load into Word 2000, let's just give it a new font and save...
python_bestiary.doc - 83KB
What was that about a crack pipe?
I've never really gotten this about molecular computing either. It seems like the capabilities of these technologies are fundamentally different from the standard math/memory model that underlies current computing. You could create a traditional computer using these technologies, of course, but they seem capable of so much more.
The brain, for instance, is massively parallel and has processing on numerous levels, with no separation between data and processing -- this simply can't be done on a conventional computer except in the most painstaking and roundabout way (even with Lisp!). Presumably these new technologies would be more suited to such a problem.
But I've never heard anyone describe how, even in the most general terms, a science of such a thing would look. What's the molecular/genetic equivalent of binary math?