For example, if patent office A says that something is obvious, but patent office B in another nation claims that it isn't
The answer is you sign a "free-trade" treaty to "synchronize" your "intellectual property" laws with the United States. Then you just do whatever the Americans tell you.
The Indian devices also seem orders of magnitude less complex than American ones. The American machines are computers; here we just throw a modified PC at a task even when its far too complex/quirky/exploitable.
Still, what India has done is to effectively remove the ballot from its citizens, since the new "ballots" aren't physical and no one can hold or point to (or effectly audit or forensically evaluate) such a thing.
Electronic data is fine for identity-based transactions (having to do with bank accounts for example) that are always being re-checked by all parties involved, but for anonymous transactions like voting... forget it. One election does not a workable system make, and I'd bet that India's system will be exploited soon enough.
Yet apples are more than just a human concept; they are a class of real objects. Without classes (belonging to sets) we can't have numeracy. So we would have to ask whether the cosmos itself accomodates classes on a fundamental level. Looking at the subatomic world, I'd say it does. The underlying uniformity gives rise to increasing uniformity and predictability at higher levels, larger connected scopes of space, energy/matter and time... until we get to the point where we can count apples and stars with integers in addition to electron orbits.
Why is it that birds and horses can count (and understand class)? Because the environment (the cosmos) makes necessary the ability for brains to reflect on that same environment in order for such an organ to be of any use.
The precludes random-sampling schemes and non-physical ballots. (Leave the random-sampling to the exit polls, OK?)
We are talking about our political capital here: Would you trust a computerized service to make *anonymous* payments for you? Or would you prefer to use green pieces of special paper?
No wait, I'll answer anyway: Anyone choosing the former over the latter is purblind stupid or has a nasty agenda.
Indeed. Computer ballots (electrons) cannot work.
on
Brave New Ballot
·
· Score: 1
What are we, crazy?
Using billions of electronic on/off switches in a machine that is meant to record 4-10 bits of information per transaction? Anonymously?? I don't think so!
The anonymous nature of the transaction makes our voting process fundamentally incompatible with highly complex electronic information processing. It's far, far too corruptible.
I don't think it will ever "eventually work" except in a form where the voter receives a computer-printed ballot they can verify before casting it. As for the electronic type of ballot: It's made of electrons, it's anonymous, therefore it cannot reliably be said to exist in the context of a free election. Ask a forensic specialist which type of ballot they would rather have to audit and personally account for down to the last logical bit.
I would find it very interesting to know WHY he chose that path. I certainly have some ideas of my own why he did so but won't put words into his mouth.
He is talented in mathematics yet will probably go on to practice (and entrench in our society) the new art of patenting mathematical algorithms (software). I find that possibility quite chilling.
Economics is awful, and economists are mostly sports commentators.
What a shame the planet didn't turn out to work according to their world-view, which excludes ecological reality much as Lysenkoism did. Having "not much to say" about it may be understating things.
Libertarianism (or 'property-aryanism' as some like to call it) is an economic philosophy among other things. Hence, it is an ideology which basically counsels its followers to thwart political organizing for the sake of letting the market work out its own "magic" solution to big problems. Of course, these 'solutions' mosly work out in favor of the wealthiest 'wallet-voters' and its no surprise they form the overwhelming majority of adherents.
For most Libertarians, the "market" has become a more real entity than, say, "humanity" or "the ecosphere". Lately some prominent ones seem to have further demoted humanity in their hearts, replacing it with increasingly-fetishized (and demonized) religious and ethnic identities. I find they are less and less likely to say "person" or "people" and more likely to use "Jew", "Arabs", "Russian", "Irish", etc. to casually refer to people. And these are all very marketable, it turns out. Ask MS-NBC and FOX how profitable they are.
Pointing out there were oscillations in the last 120,000 years does not support your assertion that anthropogenic climate change is made-up. The trend in climate research shows that there are significant natural mechanisms to account for past oscillations.
The fact is, we were in a mild warming trend before GHGs skyrocketed. And neither you nor Exxon can explain an alternate (natural) mechanism for this.
If you think that taking a stance against "technologies" which cut costs in the form of environmental degradation and other health risks is equal to to being "anti-technology" then it is you who are sadly mistaken.
Not every clever shortcut (the epitome of technology, not science) is worthwhile or safe; sometimes its no better than having a Bag O'Glass handed to your pre-schooler.
Stop painting people with inaccurate stereotypes. George Monbiot uses a laptop and a cellphone FYI. He is an engaged, highly intelligent person (who I disagree with on occasion) and knows that technologies are processes we must to *choose* for their relative benefits and tradeoffs. And those choices cannot all be made with the wallets of individuals.
So maybe what bothers and motivates you to lob BS stereotypes at people (when they are pointing out corruption and scientific studies) is that they do not covet, swallow, or bend over for every corporate scheme marketed as glitzy, cool technology.... that they are technologically selective.
The computer purchasing examples you gave are short-range decisions. Market forces do not work for long-range decisions or other large scale domains (like the average temperature of the ecosphere).
The solution will only come from a combination of political will, (regulated) markets and academic meritocracy.
Trying to see a solution to something like the climate crisis within market economics should be taken as a sign of dangerous ideological monomania. In the school of hard knocks we call that "cruisin for a bruisin".
Where did you get that little "data point" from? The drastic swings indicated by ice core samples are so far back they're from PRE-history.
It must be tough being a conspiracy theorist when most of your targets of blame never get any more specific than "the left" (i.e. scientists) and have almost no assets or power worth speaking of compared to the ultra-wealthy interests trying to discredit them.
...although I'd say your post is a prime example of picking out what you're interested in and ignoring the rest of The Fine Article.
The article is about paid lobbyists representing the richest corporations in the world while pretending to be something else entirely. So where so-called "global warming fanatics" are concerned, I don't see the similarity, whether some of them are overly-selective or not.
Perhaps all of the recent (and much-needed) attention that the climate crisis has been getting makes you uncomfortable because of conscience, or having picked the wrong side, or just aesthetics, or whatever. Irregardless, please do try to point out actual gross misrepresentations of fact when leveling blame 'back at ya' and save us from that nebulous smoke you're trying to blow up our @sses.
Since TFA mentions One Laptop Per Child somewhat derisively in this context, I'll mention that their Fedora environment will come with Squeak pre-installed. For those of you who don't know, Squeak is an implementation of Smalltalk.
So those communities getting OLPC may see magazines with smalltalk listings, instead of BASIC.
I also "grew up" on C64 BASIC V2 and although it was fun at first, one of the best things about it was how badly it made me (and many others) want to move beyond the wretched thing. Smalltalk will certainly fare better.
Mac OSX -> System Preferences -> Security -> Filevault. Click the checkbox then log back in.
Similar steps for Xandros Linux (in the user admin panel). For SuSE Linux, use the partitioner to edit the/home partition and click on the encryption checkbox.
Once a/home folder is encrypted, any settings that a web browser is likely to dump onto disk will be beyond the reach of anyone who does not have your key/passphrase.
How it got modded +5, I couldn't say but I suppose there are plenty of Slahdotters who are ignorant about Tor.
1. The very code on those servers prove they are acting in a common-carrier role.
2. Code notwithstanding, the police could only prove that the Tor node accessed (but not supplied) the CP anyway. This is where you got it backwards.
3. From what I recall, it is possession and specific trafficking of CP that's illegal, which doesn't apply to services like Tor (see above). Otherwise, anyone who builds anything that conveys objects or information anonymously is a criminal. Sidewalks don't require ID logging, and have been used to convey CP anonymously, so concrete-pourers and townships are liable for CP? I don't think so.
4. No way are Tor operators going to make a habbit out of logging IPs. They won't do it for the Communist Party in China, nor will they do it for the oh-so-legitimate thugs of capitalism.
I deplore CP, but the advice you're offering is doing no one a favor except perhaps for the grandstanding. twisted public officials who like to prove they are ""doing something"" to protect the community.
That doesn't matter when spying becomes deriguer, because today's government is not today's government and who knows what the government (or employers, for that matter) will start holding against you in the near future. With years of data amassed about you, they could start blacklisting and harrassing you (or worse) "just in case".
Nevermind that the data doesn't rightfully belong in their hands; Its basically a given that some people will try to capitalize on it, purposefully misconstruing it "by accident". This is how otherwise useless people in governments and corporations alike justify their bonuses and re-elections along with their nepotism and cronyistic bid-less contracts. Such people set their sights on using the powerful tools of the day to manufacture scapegoats and by the time their handiwork becomes known for what it is, at that point it can be nearly impossible to depose them.
Don't give them any more information than you absolutely have to.
The Sylvania CFL I just bought is "cool white" which is rated at 3000K and I like it much more than the 2700K "warm" CFLs I have. They also sell a 4100K model.
CF bulbs are formulated for different color temperatures these days. Sylvania sells them in 2800K, 3000K and 4100K.
The first CF bult I bought over 4 years ago was like all the others I'd seen at the time: U-shaped, and quite ruddy at 2800K. I never got used-to or liked it; much too pinkish and uneven for me. A new Sylvania 3000K twist I just bought is much nicer. I can sit and read with it for hours.
Still, halogens are ideal for my eyes. I still use them in the wintertime.
You have, I think, confused event horizons with light cones.
Not all matter has an event horizon (probably most). And having an event horizon doesn't put it into the categories of weakly-interacting or non-interacting matter.
Slashdot Mirror
The traditional western freedom to express anything in terms of mathematics.
Where so-called "intellectual property" leads us is nothing short of enclosure of the mind.
For example, if patent office A says that something is obvious, but patent office B in another nation claims that it isn't
The answer is you sign a "free-trade" treaty to "synchronize" your "intellectual property" laws with the United States. Then you just do whatever the Americans tell you.
Novell needs to diversify, and this looks like a good way to do it.
The Indian devices also seem orders of magnitude less complex than American ones. The American machines are computers; here we just throw a modified PC at a task even when its far too complex/quirky/exploitable.
Still, what India has done is to effectively remove the ballot from its citizens, since the new "ballots" aren't physical and no one can hold or point to (or effectly audit or forensically evaluate) such a thing.
Electronic data is fine for identity-based transactions (having to do with bank accounts for example) that are always being re-checked by all parties involved, but for anonymous transactions like voting... forget it. One election does not a workable system make, and I'd bet that India's system will be exploited soon enough.
Yet apples are more than just a human concept; they are a class of real objects. Without classes (belonging to sets) we can't have numeracy. So we would have to ask whether the cosmos itself accomodates classes on a fundamental level. Looking at the subatomic world, I'd say it does. The underlying uniformity gives rise to increasing uniformity and predictability at higher levels, larger connected scopes of space, energy/matter and time... until we get to the point where we can count apples and stars with integers in addition to electron orbits.
Why is it that birds and horses can count (and understand class)? Because the environment (the cosmos) makes necessary the ability for brains to reflect on that same environment in order for such an organ to be of any use.
...in addition to being anonymous.
The precludes random-sampling schemes and non-physical ballots. (Leave the random-sampling to the exit polls, OK?)
We are talking about our political capital here: Would you trust a computerized service to make *anonymous* payments for you? Or would you prefer to use green pieces of special paper?
No wait, I'll answer anyway: Anyone choosing the former over the latter is purblind stupid or has a nasty agenda.
What are we, crazy?
Using billions of electronic on/off switches in a machine that is meant to record 4-10 bits of information per transaction? Anonymously?? I don't think so!
The anonymous nature of the transaction makes our voting process fundamentally incompatible with highly complex electronic information processing. It's far, far too corruptible.
I don't think it will ever "eventually work" except in a form where the voter receives a computer-printed ballot they can verify before casting it. As for the electronic type of ballot: It's made of electrons, it's anonymous, therefore it cannot reliably be said to exist in the context of a free election. Ask a forensic specialist which type of ballot they would rather have to audit and personally account for down to the last logical bit.
I would find it very interesting to know WHY he chose that path. I certainly have some ideas of my own why he did so but won't put words into his mouth.
He is talented in mathematics yet will probably go on to practice (and entrench in our society) the new art of patenting mathematical algorithms (software). I find that possibility quite chilling.
Economics is awful, and economists are mostly sports commentators.
What a shame the planet didn't turn out to work according to their world-view, which excludes ecological reality much as Lysenkoism did. Having "not much to say" about it may be understating things.
Libertarianism (or 'property-aryanism' as some like to call it) is an economic philosophy among other things. Hence, it is an ideology which basically counsels its followers to thwart political organizing for the sake of letting the market work out its own "magic" solution to big problems. Of course, these 'solutions' mosly work out in favor of the wealthiest 'wallet-voters' and its no surprise they form the overwhelming majority of adherents.
For most Libertarians, the "market" has become a more real entity than, say, "humanity" or "the ecosphere". Lately some prominent ones seem to have further demoted humanity in their hearts, replacing it with increasingly-fetishized (and demonized) religious and ethnic identities. I find they are less and less likely to say "person" or "people" and more likely to use "Jew", "Arabs", "Russian", "Irish", etc. to casually refer to people. And these are all very marketable, it turns out. Ask MS-NBC and FOX how profitable they are.
Pointing out there were oscillations in the last 120,000 years does not support your assertion that anthropogenic climate change is made-up. The trend in climate research shows that there are significant natural mechanisms to account for past oscillations.
The fact is, we were in a mild warming trend before GHGs skyrocketed. And neither you nor Exxon can explain an alternate (natural) mechanism for this.
If you think that taking a stance against "technologies" which cut costs in the form of environmental degradation and other health risks is equal to to being "anti-technology" then it is you who are sadly mistaken.
Not every clever shortcut (the epitome of technology, not science) is worthwhile or safe; sometimes its no better than having a Bag O'Glass handed to your pre-schooler.
Stop painting people with inaccurate stereotypes. George Monbiot uses a laptop and a cellphone FYI. He is an engaged, highly intelligent person (who I disagree with on occasion) and knows that technologies are processes we must to *choose* for their relative benefits and tradeoffs. And those choices cannot all be made with the wallets of individuals.
So maybe what bothers and motivates you to lob BS stereotypes at people (when they are pointing out corruption and scientific studies) is that they do not covet, swallow, or bend over for every corporate scheme marketed as glitzy, cool technology.... that they are technologically selective.
The computer purchasing examples you gave are short-range decisions. Market forces do not work for long-range decisions or other large scale domains (like the average temperature of the ecosphere).
The solution will only come from a combination of political will, (regulated) markets and academic meritocracy.
Trying to see a solution to something like the climate crisis within market economics should be taken as a sign of dangerous ideological monomania. In the school of hard knocks we call that "cruisin for a bruisin".
"Historically mild?"
Where did you get that little "data point" from? The drastic swings indicated by ice core samples are so far back they're from PRE-history.
It must be tough being a conspiracy theorist when most of your targets of blame never get any more specific than "the left" (i.e. scientists) and have almost no assets or power worth speaking of compared to the ultra-wealthy interests trying to discredit them.
...although I'd say your post is a prime example of picking out what you're interested in and ignoring the rest of The Fine Article.
The article is about paid lobbyists representing the richest corporations in the world while pretending to be something else entirely. So where so-called "global warming fanatics" are concerned, I don't see the similarity, whether some of them are overly-selective or not.
Perhaps all of the recent (and much-needed) attention that the climate crisis has been getting makes you uncomfortable because of conscience, or having picked the wrong side, or just aesthetics, or whatever. Irregardless, please do try to point out actual gross misrepresentations of fact when leveling blame 'back at ya' and save us from that nebulous smoke you're trying to blow up our @sses.
On Panther it really is pico, not nano. Or perhaps something you did with Darwinports or Fink replaced pico...
Since TFA mentions One Laptop Per Child somewhat derisively in this context, I'll mention that their Fedora environment will come with Squeak pre-installed. For those of you who don't know, Squeak is an implementation of Smalltalk.
So those communities getting OLPC may see magazines with smalltalk listings, instead of BASIC.
I also "grew up" on C64 BASIC V2 and although it was fun at first, one of the best things about it was how badly it made me (and many others) want to move beyond the wretched thing. Smalltalk will certainly fare better.
They are now starting to build higher-resolution models to help predict specific risks for certain regions in greater detail.
Mac OSX -> System Preferences -> Security -> Filevault. Click the checkbox then log back in.
/home partition and click on the encryption checkbox.
/home folder is encrypted, any settings that a web browser is likely to dump onto disk will be beyond the reach of anyone who does not have your key/passphrase.
Similar steps for Xandros Linux (in the user admin panel). For SuSE Linux, use the partitioner to edit the
Once a
...well, at least it was cute and rhymed.
b asics/jtb_biodiesel.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/
"biodiesel can reduce the carcinogenic properties of diesel fuel by 94%"
Biodiesel exhaust != Diesel exhaust.
...we were wondering what happened to the surviving middlemen from the B-Ark.
What's that you say? They work for "i-names" now?
"Internet sanitizers" you say? Well.... we're so delighted their safely with you.
(And not us!)
How it got modded +5, I couldn't say but I suppose there are plenty of Slahdotters who are ignorant about Tor.
1. The very code on those servers prove they are acting in a common-carrier role.
2. Code notwithstanding, the police could only prove that the Tor node accessed (but not supplied) the CP anyway. This is where you got it backwards.
3. From what I recall, it is possession and specific trafficking of CP that's illegal, which doesn't apply to services like Tor (see above). Otherwise, anyone who builds anything that conveys objects or information anonymously is a criminal. Sidewalks don't require ID logging, and have been used to convey CP anonymously, so concrete-pourers and townships are liable for CP? I don't think so.
4. No way are Tor operators going to make a habbit out of logging IPs. They won't do it for the Communist Party in China, nor will they do it for the oh-so-legitimate thugs of capitalism.
I deplore CP, but the advice you're offering is doing no one a favor except perhaps for the grandstanding. twisted public officials who like to prove they are ""doing something"" to protect the community.
That doesn't matter when spying becomes deriguer, because today's government is not today's government and who knows what the government (or employers, for that matter) will start holding against you in the near future. With years of data amassed about you, they could start blacklisting and harrassing you (or worse) "just in case".
Nevermind that the data doesn't rightfully belong in their hands; Its basically a given that some people will try to capitalize on it, purposefully misconstruing it "by accident". This is how otherwise useless people in governments and corporations alike justify their bonuses and re-elections along with their nepotism and cronyistic bid-less contracts. Such people set their sights on using the powerful tools of the day to manufacture scapegoats and by the time their handiwork becomes known for what it is, at that point it can be nearly impossible to depose them.
Don't give them any more information than you absolutely have to.
The Sylvania CFL I just bought is "cool white" which is rated at 3000K and I like it much more than the 2700K "warm" CFLs I have. They also sell a 4100K model.
CF bulbs are formulated for different color temperatures these days. Sylvania sells them in 2800K, 3000K and 4100K.
The first CF bult I bought over 4 years ago was like all the others I'd seen at the time: U-shaped, and quite ruddy at 2800K. I never got used-to or liked it; much too pinkish and uneven for me. A new Sylvania 3000K twist I just bought is much nicer. I can sit and read with it for hours.
Still, halogens are ideal for my eyes. I still use them in the wintertime.
You have, I think, confused event horizons with light cones.
Not all matter has an event horizon (probably most). And having an event horizon doesn't put it into the categories of weakly-interacting or non-interacting matter.