exactly. for the purposes of this role, the variation of individuals within each group is much greater than the variation between the groups. i doubt that the type of degree was the top factor in decision.
this accomplishment (and most modern accomplishments) was due more to the coordination of the efforts of several intelligent-enough people, than to their individual intelligences per se.
it's not unreasonable to think that a (slight) reduction in intelligence could make it much easier to achieve this coordination, while keeping enough individuals bright enough to keep up with their peers. further, one might reasonably think that modern society rewards willingness to cooperate (in whatever form, i don't necessarily mean altruistically) more than intelligence in and of itself.
yeah, they have, but (just like with almost any os) the front-end gets more feature-rich (or bloated if you want) at the same time, so the practical speed stays roughly the same.
anyway, why are we even having this discussion? the original point was whether os x was "greatly modified," and whether it "blows," compared to older version. neither is true. meanwhile, you're vaguely speculating about the fine details of a platform you don't even use. stop it.
uh, what's the difference between then and now, exactly? i've been using os x for a unix environment since 2005, and the biggest change i've noticed on the unix side is that they ditched powerpc for intel (thank christ).
contradiction. legalizing drugs would be a huge step toward smaller government and a small but significant step toward less international meddling.
and it's an informative contradiction. everyone says they are for smaller government, but what they mean is that they want lower taxes and fewer services for others; almost everyone wants to keep their own entitlements.
if you compare drug legalization with any concrete plan to shrink government significantly, drug legalization would be much more popular (as of course it would be to any moderate, since it would be a simpler endeavor). to the general public, "smaller government" is merely a thought-terminating cliche; a simplistic outlet for their frustrations.
one way i've heard this summarized is that "newton wasn't the first scientist; he was the last mystic."
for a few decades after newton, there was this adaptation by mystics of "natural magic," to use newtonian mechanics to discover occult knowledge (or less charitably to couch their nonsense in fashionable terms). imho, they were just a few centuries early; nowadays we call that "artificial intelligence" or "machine learning."
also, that's a bit overbroad of a statement. static program analysis is a real field with real results. the church-turing thesis is just about not being able to predict halting on all programs. it could very well be the case that a lot of practical programs belong to a subclass that can be "solved," although of course determining membership in that subclass may not be computable. for a kind of silly example, if i want to determine the property "this program halts within 5 instructions on any standard input of length 4," i can in this case either brute force it or use a finite-state abstraction to model the code. the severe time bound of this property is, of course, what makes it doable.
well, yeah, that too, eventually. but even just rigorously characterizing every possible "reason" a human being might be interested in would be pretty much impossible. it's one of those problems that is not even possible to state formally, let alone solve.
uh, how the hell would that work? answering that question automatically would be impossible, and having the developer tell you would be pointless since you don't trust him anyway.
it's just like the pencil recommendations above; sometimes people get the question wrong. the potential to have this pointed out is the major benefit of asking a human being (or several) about something, rather than google.
and op is a bit harsh, but there may be some truth to it. looking back on my life, the times when i've been obsessed with micro-writing were also times when i was extremely anxious and neurotic. over time, my obsession with extra-fine writing faded, and my writing interests have moved to fountain pens and high-quality papers and inks, which is much more fun and interesting imho.
i don't know exactly what the difference is between a fiber-tip pen and a "pigment ink liner," but the latter go down to 0.05mm (that's not a typo, i really mean 1/20th of a millimeter). they are fiber pens, so they don't have a ball feed, which should be good news for your other requirements.
i stole a 0.1mm a few months ago and apparently destroyed the tip just by writing delicately (and i do have some experience with extremely fine pens), so you'll have plenty of use for that light touch of yours.
if you want something more artistic in your off-time, i've heard that experienced chinese calligraphers can control their brush pens to where they can write essentially with a single hair. might be a fun hobby.
probably (hopefully) they will require a police report to be filed, as is required, say, for claims against bank card fraud. you'd have to be a total moron to file a false police report.
i am not a lawyer, but i think i'm right on the following. anyone out there who knows better, please correct.
the license is for manufacturers, not users. you don't need a license, and if you had one (you don't, btw; the license isn't bound to the unit) it would be irrelevant unless you were selling dvd players. the license isn't bound to the unit in any meaningful way; it's better to think that the license allowed the unit to be made. further, if the dvd-rom depends on a software player to handle css (which it does, if it came with software), those licenses are probably separate anyway. you don't hold licenses in the sense that you can take the windows software license and move it over to a linux software player.
so far, this isn't so bad, actually. note: you can't (yet) as a user get into trouble. licenses were meant to be for manufacturers.
and that's what makes dmca so horrible. it's a legal hack that takes a civil contract between corporations (philips, sony, et al. license the patents to dvd player manufacturers), and transmutes it into a criminal offense by the user in the following way: only licensed players are "authorized" to decrypt css, non-licensed players are not authorized and therefore, under the dmca, criminal to use. nota bene: a restriction on manufacturing was transmuted into a restriction on use. the worst part about it is, it is impossible to get a use license because they don't exist, and don't even make sense under the current system! thanks to the dmca, your usage of a technology is dependent on a manufacturer to sell it to you (or i guess you can become a manufacturer yourself).
there are (at least?) two fixes: abolish the dmca, or do as you're saying and make the patent licenses fully fungible on the end user level.
the slashdot and net-security.org articles are wrong, it's actually $5,000 total ($2,500 each) and $510,000 for the lawyers.
and they might not even get that: ``In the event the Court approves the Settlement, but declines to award Named Plaintiffs’ Incentive Awards in the amount requested by Settlement Class Counsel and agreed by the Parties, the Settlement will nevertheless be binding on the Parties."
since you seem to be French, i have to ask: did you intend the very negative connotations of the word "vulgarise"? don't take this the wrong way, it's just kind of funny and i'm genuinely confused because you seem to be mostly positive about the works you mention.
don't bother with anything by rudy rucker. except the hacker and the ants, or maybe white light if you're desperate.
anyway, someone mentioned greg egan; i'll second that in general. i don't know exactly what you mean by "mathematical" that would exclude 70s hard sf; greg egan might be too close to that or not. i don't know.
and although it barely qualifies, stanislaw lem's the investigation was very interesting to me; the description at wikipedia is accurate and as spoiler-free as it could be. actually, anything by stanislaw lem; his stories usually involve flights of bizarre logic, like a science-fiction lewis carroll.
yeah; a glib, tangential reply to every practical objection, but i'm sure that if one of the 4,182 most popular variants of libertarianism were magically enacted, it would be a goddam paradise.
Slashdot Mirror
sure, it's awful, but as far as history goes i'd rather have lawyers oppressing me than, say, the british east india company.
exactly. for the purposes of this role, the variation of individuals within each group is much greater than the variation between the groups. i doubt that the type of degree was the top factor in decision.
this accomplishment (and most modern accomplishments) was due more to the coordination of the efforts of several intelligent-enough people, than to their individual intelligences per se.
it's not unreasonable to think that a (slight) reduction in intelligence could make it much easier to achieve this coordination, while keeping enough individuals bright enough to keep up with their peers. further, one might reasonably think that modern society rewards willingness to cooperate (in whatever form, i don't necessarily mean altruistically) more than intelligence in and of itself.
yeah, they have, but (just like with almost any os) the front-end gets more feature-rich (or bloated if you want) at the same time, so the practical speed stays roughly the same.
anyway, why are we even having this discussion? the original point was whether os x was "greatly modified," and whether it "blows," compared to older version. neither is true. meanwhile, you're vaguely speculating about the fine details of a platform you don't even use. stop it.
gee, if that's a problem for them, i guess they should have used the gpl.
uh, what's the difference between then and now, exactly? i've been using os x for a unix environment since 2005, and the biggest change i've noticed on the unix side is that they ditched powerpc for intel (thank christ).
contradiction. legalizing drugs would be a huge step toward smaller government and a small but significant step toward less international meddling.
and it's an informative contradiction. everyone says they are for smaller government, but what they mean is that they want lower taxes and fewer services for others; almost everyone wants to keep their own entitlements.
if you compare drug legalization with any concrete plan to shrink government significantly, drug legalization would be much more popular (as of course it would be to any moderate, since it would be a simpler endeavor). to the general public, "smaller government" is merely a thought-terminating cliche; a simplistic outlet for their frustrations.
one way i've heard this summarized is that "newton wasn't the first scientist; he was the last mystic."
for a few decades after newton, there was this adaptation by mystics of "natural magic," to use newtonian mechanics to discover occult knowledge (or less charitably to couch their nonsense in fashionable terms). imho, they were just a few centuries early; nowadays we call that "artificial intelligence" or "machine learning."
also, that's a bit overbroad of a statement. static program analysis is a real field with real results. the church-turing thesis is just about not being able to predict halting on all programs. it could very well be the case that a lot of practical programs belong to a subclass that can be "solved," although of course determining membership in that subclass may not be computable. for a kind of silly example, if i want to determine the property "this program halts within 5 instructions on any standard input of length 4," i can in this case either brute force it or use a finite-state abstraction to model the code. the severe time bound of this property is, of course, what makes it doable.
well, yeah, that too, eventually. but even just rigorously characterizing every possible "reason" a human being might be interested in would be pretty much impossible. it's one of those problems that is not even possible to state formally, let alone solve.
uh, how the hell would that work? answering that question automatically would be impossible, and having the developer tell you would be pointless since you don't trust him anyway.
hey, nice sig, I missed it before. seems a bit apropos here, actually.
it's just like the pencil recommendations above; sometimes people get the question wrong. the potential to have this pointed out is the major benefit of asking a human being (or several) about something, rather than google.
and op is a bit harsh, but there may be some truth to it. looking back on my life, the times when i've been obsessed with micro-writing were also times when i was extremely anxious and neurotic. over time, my obsession with extra-fine writing faded, and my writing interests have moved to fountain pens and high-quality papers and inks, which is much more fun and interesting imho.
if you can't find it in this or another search of the same site, i think you're out of luck: http://www.jetpens.com/search?q=pigment+ink
i don't know exactly what the difference is between a fiber-tip pen and a "pigment ink liner," but the latter go down to 0.05mm (that's not a typo, i really mean 1/20th of a millimeter). they are fiber pens, so they don't have a ball feed, which should be good news for your other requirements.
i stole a 0.1mm a few months ago and apparently destroyed the tip just by writing delicately (and i do have some experience with extremely fine pens), so you'll have plenty of use for that light touch of yours.
if you want something more artistic in your off-time, i've heard that experienced chinese calligraphers can control their brush pens to where they can write essentially with a single hair. might be a fun hobby.
yeah, and US letter (1.294:1) too. i posted this same complaint here months ago. alas, no one gives a shit.
probably (hopefully) they will require a police report to be filed, as is required, say, for claims against bank card fraud. you'd have to be a total moron to file a false police report.
i am not a lawyer, but i think i'm right on the following. anyone out there who knows better, please correct.
the license is for manufacturers, not users. you don't need a license, and if you had one (you don't, btw; the license isn't bound to the unit) it would be irrelevant unless you were selling dvd players. the license isn't bound to the unit in any meaningful way; it's better to think that the license allowed the unit to be made. further, if the dvd-rom depends on a software player to handle css (which it does, if it came with software), those licenses are probably separate anyway. you don't hold licenses in the sense that you can take the windows software license and move it over to a linux software player.
so far, this isn't so bad, actually. note: you can't (yet) as a user get into trouble. licenses were meant to be for manufacturers.
and that's what makes dmca so horrible. it's a legal hack that takes a civil contract between corporations (philips, sony, et al. license the patents to dvd player manufacturers), and transmutes it into a criminal offense by the user in the following way: only licensed players are "authorized" to decrypt css, non-licensed players are not authorized and therefore, under the dmca, criminal to use. nota bene: a restriction on manufacturing was transmuted into a restriction on use. the worst part about it is, it is impossible to get a use license because they don't exist, and don't even make sense under the current system! thanks to the dmca, your usage of a technology is dependent on a manufacturer to sell it to you (or i guess you can become a manufacturer yourself).
there are (at least?) two fixes: abolish the dmca, or do as you're saying and make the patent licenses fully fungible on the end user level.
the slashdot and net-security.org articles are wrong, it's actually $5,000 total ($2,500 each) and $510,000 for the lawyers.
and they might not even get that: ``In the event the Court approves the Settlement, but declines to award Named Plaintiffs’ Incentive Awards in the amount requested by Settlement Class Counsel and agreed by the Parties, the Settlement will nevertheless be binding on the Parties."
what a beautiful racket.
well, when you put it like that, i guess you should have been a lawyer.
since you seem to be French, i have to ask: did you intend the very negative connotations of the word "vulgarise"? don't take this the wrong way, it's just kind of funny and i'm genuinely confused because you seem to be mostly positive about the works you mention.
don't bother with anything by rudy rucker. except the hacker and the ants, or maybe white light if you're desperate.
anyway, someone mentioned greg egan; i'll second that in general. i don't know exactly what you mean by "mathematical" that would exclude 70s hard sf; greg egan might be too close to that or not. i don't know.
and although it barely qualifies, stanislaw lem's the investigation was very interesting to me; the description at wikipedia is accurate and as spoiler-free as it could be. actually, anything by stanislaw lem; his stories usually involve flights of bizarre logic, like a science-fiction lewis carroll.
yeah; a glib, tangential reply to every practical objection, but i'm sure that if one of the 4,182 most popular variants of libertarianism were magically enacted, it would be a goddam paradise.
right; my claim is that this government would have to be pretty large and intrusive to deal with all cases like this.
or: everyone is libertarian about the parts of government they don't like.
so introducing the risk of environment impact is considered initiation of force?
great, now we need a fairly large government to monitor and enforce this law.
but that's initiating force, which is the one thing most libertarians claim to agree is wrong.