I don't advocate sympathy for any "country". But I do think that failure to have sympathy for every one of 25,000 dead innocents puts one in a moral class with every demonized icon of barbarity in human history.
I do not believe that the actual vote is relevant, for three reasons:
1) The last election was decided by 5/9 of the Supreme Court.
2) Electronic voting machines are used, overwhelmingly, as a vehicle for unauditable election fraud.
3) Democracy assumes a free press, and an informed electorate (enabled thereby), but neither of these conditions obtain -- hence there is no meaningful democratic process in the U.S. at the national level, even in the absence of fraud or junta.
Re:Prohibiting sedition: A fine American tradition
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
> Our Founding Fathers... passed the Sedition act...
How silly is it to think that a government which claims the ability to designate any living individual on the planet an "enemy combatant" and kill them, without legal process, is "of the people, by the people, and for the people"?
Hey, there's nothing wrong with speaking English as a second language, but you really need to know that your post was a whole lot of fun to parse. If I were to interpret it according to standard English semantics, parts would mean the opposite of what I suspect that you intended.
"Causing lives is a terrible thing to taste."
--not dan quayle
No particular empathy for Sherman is required in order to recognize that this is a failure of the system of law which has historically protected the people of the U.S. from totalitarian repression.
The merits of this case are not the issue, and mentioning that Sherman is a dumbass suburbanite, etc., regardless of its truth or falsity, is an irrelevant distraction. Sherman's advocates hold him in no less contempt than do his opponents, for the most part.
I think I understand your viewpoint. Please correct me if my description is inaccurate:
1) The number of people being significantly harmed by terrorists is large.
2) The number of people being significantly harmed by the U.S. government is small.
As a consequence (fill in the enthymeme) you prefer that the U.S. government be allowed to harm more people if that reduces the incidence of harm by terrorists.
Oh - I forgot to mention one very important premise here:
3) "The U.S. government" and "terrorists" are disjoint groups.
There is a problem with these premises. The number of people being killed or mutilated or impoverished by the actions of the U.S. goverment is at least an order of magnitude larger than the number being similarly harmed by "terrorists". For that reason, I also question (3).
There is an alternative interpretation which I can place on your views: That the balance between giving more power to terrorists versus giving more power to the U.S. government is not based on how much harm is being done by each of these groups, but rather on the basis of how much of a threat you think these groups are to you, personally.
I will respect your moral sense enough to discount this interpretation, however, if only because anyone who considers their subjective sense of security to be worth the brutal deaths of thousands of "sand niggers" is so far beneath my contempt that I wouldn't think of engaging in a respectful discussion with such a person.
Therefore, I think you should reconsider your viewpoint, in light of the counter-factual nature of the premises listed as (1) and (2), above.
Most big problems have big data. But to exemplify the kind of problem your describing, consider computing the digits of pi.... You need to compute the initial, lower precision digits before you can refine the answer, thus adding digits.
But wait, as it turns out there is an algorithm for computing any digit of pi independently of the others.
I think that there is no problem that is not soluble by a massively parallel method. After all, we are trying to compute results about the real world -- and reality itself is ultra-parallel.
> td ots processors are often idle because the memory subsystem cannot feed the processor fast enough.
This is an argument for building a faster memory, not a faster CPU.
> Some map best to vector machines.
Fortunately, all the major high-speed COTS processors are vector machines. (SSE2, Altivec...)
> The architecture ought to match the problem set.
So write all your code in VHDL and run it on FPGAs.
> Commodity hardware goes kaputt
I'll take the quality control that goes into millions of chips from thousands of wafers over two drunk guys with a soldering iron and an atomic microscope any day.
Its unfairly pejorative to call it a subsidy. The NSA buys shift-and-mask engines because it helps them fulfill their mission to read all of your mail, not because Tera's VCs were Bill or George's brothers-in-law. Oh there may be a bit of a bias for U.S. products, but they do invite all of the big fish to the pork barrel (Sun, IBM, Cray).
Which just goes to show that drugs and software are treated differently by the law. I wonder why that might be.... perhaps because they are in fact quite different?
hehe. i took a relativity & q.m. class at the u of mn from one professor y.c.tang who regaled us with tales of studying under werner heisenberg as a grad student. i got 22% on the final, and an "a" for the class, by virtue of assiduous study and very careful notetaking. i'm guessing the mean was in the single digits. utterly bizarre practice.
The package can say what it likes, but I will continue to load CDS freely as I see fit. I paid for this disc, and I'll do with it as I please.
In fact, I pay money, I get a disc. I paid for a disc.
Were I in some bizarre way held responsible for the claims of the publisher to restrictive rights of control over my use of that disc, I certainly would not purchase it.
Slashdot Mirror
God, yes ... and his vicar on Earth, Guy Steele.
I don't advocate sympathy for any
"country". But I do think that failure to
have sympathy for every one of 25,000
dead innocents puts one in a moral class
with every demonized icon of barbarity
in human history.
I do not believe that the actual vote is relevant,
for three reasons:
1) The last election was decided by 5/9 of the
Supreme Court.
2) Electronic voting machines are used, overwhelmingly,
as a vehicle for unauditable election fraud.
3) Democracy assumes a free press, and an informed
electorate (enabled thereby), but neither of these
conditions obtain -- hence there is no meaningful
democratic process in the U.S. at the national level,
even in the absence of fraud or junta.
> Our Founding Fathers... passed the Sedition act...
They also found it unconstitutional.
> felons have no rights.
Well, there goes the whole concept of
*inalienable* rights. Glad you
cleared up *that* little issue!
How silly is it to think that a government which
claims the ability to designate any living individual
on the planet an "enemy combatant" and kill
them,
without legal process, is "of the people, by the
people, and for the people"?
Hey, there's nothing wrong with speaking English
as a second language, but you really need to know
that your post was a whole lot of fun to parse.
If I were to interpret it according to standard
English semantics, parts would mean the opposite
of what I suspect that you intended.
"Causing lives is a terrible thing to taste."
--not dan quayle
This Reductio is brought to you by Absurdum.
No particular empathy for Sherman is required in
order to recognize that this is a failure of the
system of law which has historically protected
the people of the U.S. from totalitarian repression.
The merits of this case are not the issue, and mentioning
that Sherman is a dumbass suburbanite, etc.,
regardless of its truth or falsity, is an
irrelevant distraction. Sherman's advocates
hold him in no less contempt than do his opponents,
for the most part.
I think I understand your viewpoint. Please correct
me if my description is inaccurate:
1) The number of people being significantly harmed
by terrorists is large.
2) The number of people being significantly harmed
by the U.S. government is small.
As a consequence (fill in the enthymeme) you
prefer that the U.S. government be allowed to harm
more people if that reduces the incidence of harm
by terrorists.
Oh - I forgot to mention one very important
premise here:
3) "The U.S. government" and "terrorists" are
disjoint groups.
There is a problem with these premises.
The number of people being killed or mutilated
or impoverished by the actions of the U.S.
goverment is at least an order of magnitude
larger than the number being similarly harmed
by "terrorists". For that reason, I also
question (3).
There is an alternative interpretation which I
can place on your views: That the balance between
giving more power to terrorists versus giving
more power to the U.S. government is not based
on how much harm is being done by each of these
groups, but rather on the basis of how much of
a threat you think these groups are to you,
personally.
I will respect your moral sense enough to discount
this interpretation, however, if only because
anyone who considers their subjective sense of
security to be worth the brutal deaths of thousands
of "sand niggers" is so far beneath my contempt
that I wouldn't think of engaging in a respectful
discussion with such a person.
Therefore, I think you should reconsider your
viewpoint, in light of the counter-factual
nature of the premises listed as (1) and (2),
above.
People don't die when you attack windmills.
I'd peg the deaths due to the invasion of Iraq
no lower than 25,000. Mass murder, in fact.
There is no peacable assembly issue. It is purely a freedom of the press issue.
Most big problems have big data. But to exemplify
the kind of problem your describing, consider
computing the digits of pi.... You need to compute
the initial, lower precision digits before you
can refine the answer, thus adding digits.
But wait, as it turns out there is an algorithm for
computing any digit of pi independently of the others.
I think that there is no problem that is not
soluble by a massively parallel method. After all,
we are trying to compute results about the real
world -- and reality itself is ultra-parallel.
> td ots processors are often idle because the memory subsystem cannot feed the processor fast enough.
This is an argument for building a faster memory,
not a faster CPU.
> Some map best to vector machines.
Fortunately, all the major high-speed COTS
processors are vector machines. (SSE2, Altivec...)
> The architecture ought to match the problem set.
So write all your code in VHDL and run it on
FPGAs.
> Commodity hardware goes kaputt
I'll take the quality control that goes into
millions of chips from thousands of wafers
over two drunk guys with a soldering iron
and an atomic microscope any day.
In heaven, they all have Zauruses.
The CPUs the beowulf clusters are all vector
processors too. SSE2 and all that.
Its unfairly pejorative to call it a subsidy.
The NSA buys shift-and-mask engines because it
helps them fulfill their mission to read all of
your mail, not because Tera's VCs were Bill
or George's brothers-in-law. Oh there may be
a bit of a bias for U.S. products, but they
do invite all of the big fish to the pork
barrel (Sun, IBM, Cray).
Hot Fur Pie. Warning: Contents may be hot.
When was the last time you got a PGP-encrypted spam?
Stop accepting unencrypted mail and your problem
is solved.
which is nice, but not better than Java:
...
this.addListener(new Listener() {
protected void handleAction() {
});
Which just goes to show that drugs and software
are treated differently by the law. I
wonder why that might be.... perhaps because
they are in fact quite different?
Sure: dx/dy. no dt involved.
hehe. i took a relativity & q.m. class at the u of
mn from one professor y.c.tang who regaled us with
tales of studying under werner heisenberg as a grad
student. i got 22% on the final, and an "a" for
the class, by virtue of assiduous study and very
careful notetaking. i'm guessing the mean was in
the single digits. utterly bizarre practice.
The package can say what it likes, but I will
continue to load CDS freely as I see fit. I
paid for this disc, and I'll do with it as I please.
In fact, I pay money, I get a disc. I paid for a
disc.
Were I in some bizarre way held responsible for the
claims of the publisher to restrictive rights of
control over my use of that disc, I certainly would
not purchase it.