I like the way you exclude everyone except the great white father who is not a terrorist, oh no no, but a Godly Man in Authority who protects you from the terrible ugly semitic lunatics who hate your freedoms so much that they want to die in order to force you to give up all semblance of human rights and dignity, and all power to threaten tyrannical machiavellian mass murders who steal elections.
Of course, that's exactly what they did. If you look at the photos it should be obvious even to a layperson that the bombs were planted underneath the floorboards. It's an own-goal, dude. Hella strategy that.
> Saddam was writing checks to the families of suicide bombers, and loudly proclaiming his support for groups like Hamas that were willing to use terror against western interests.
"Western interests"? I think that term does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean bankrupting the US in order to prop up a plutocracy in Tel Aviv.
> Iran's concerns are that, for example, the US is the Great Satan
Easy problem to solve: Stop acting like Satan.
> he continued to shoot at the patroling aircraft
Every nation has the obligation to defend its territory and people against foreign incursion. The USUK axis has bombed Iraq continuously from 1991 to now. Why? Because they are EVIL.
> Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth
Perhaps you should check your facts. That's a misquote. But given that it is the greatest threat to mankind in the world, a practitioner of genocide, a corrupter of nations, is stockpiling nuclear weapons, practices torture, and is suffuse with an ideology that regards the lives of outside group members as of less value than livestock, I think that it might be a good idea to eliminate the state of Israel before they finish executing the published plan to kill every Christian between the Nile and the Euphrates. Lord knows they're making hella progress on that front in Lebanon today.
One man's crap is another man's candy, it seems. Your candy looks like crap to me.
Personally, I'm all in favor of terrorist attacks using RPGs or, better, SAMs, as long as they take out traitors like Senators and Executives rather than the oppressed (meaning everyone who has one McMansion and two Mercedes SUVs or less). Of course a real, sensible, effective terrorist attack like that would never occur, because it wouldn't be helpful to the administration or it's owners: It wouldn't increase fear and dependency, but rather reduce it.
> Either they're lying to us about their goals, or they have absolutely no sense of perspective, or they're viciously > incompetent. Or some combination of the three. I just can't come up with any other explanations.
Why would you need to come up with explanations other than the correct ones? Insecurity so bad that you need a comforting authority figure to tell you where your ass ends and the hole in the ground begins?
(This is rhetorical, not directed at you, MadDog Bob-2.)
But, all of those problems would cease to be relevant if a few K gates were present on every DRAM die, implementing a CPU with latencies to memory that no COTS chip designer would dare to dream about in his wildest fancies.
> It's nice that you can build a Forth machine with about 4000 gates, but who cares today?
Now put one of those CPUs on the RAM chip for every 256KB of RAM. Think about the petaflops that result from a decent sized array of those. Not MDGRAPE3 petaflops mind you, but real, general-purpose, linpack smacking petaflops, for pennies on the gigaflop.
You can, in fact, load microcode into many recent Intel CPUs. And you can, in fact, thereby make it faster to perform certain specialized tasks. It is concievable, even, that you could make a superior ISA, in both design and performance terms.
Programming to the bare metal is more closely akin to VLIW/EPIC ISA programming than it is to RISC programming. Whereas RISC designs attempt to eliminate microcode from the stack in favor of a highly orthogonalized ISA, VLIW designs essentially incorporate the microcode into each opcode, thus giving the programmer the ability to schedule the gates on functional units manually. The Intel/HP Itanic is an example of such an architecture (although generally distinguished from classical -- e.g. Multiflow -- VLIW through the use of the marketing term EPIC).
The reason we have the x86 architecture today as a de facto standard is economy of scale. Were a wholesale conversion to occur, such that economies of scale applied to stack machines, or lisp machines, or jellybean machines, or *T machines, then those would likely execute your code faster than anything else in the commodity price bracket.
Even Intel and HP in alliance, with all their weight behind it, couldn't shake loose the x86 monopoly through revolutionary change, as witness the fate of (VLIW/)EPIC architecture in the Itanic. Now an evolutionary, gradualistic change could be made which converted the world to stack machines, and the result would probably be better than a perpetuation of x86 (although the impact of unanticipated technological change in the meanwhile might change that equation), but barring a centrally planned economy (which would fail it on other grounds) that sort of optimized path forward seems extremely unlikely.
If a system designed in 1973 was still operating in the early 80's, even in the guise of a POS, then I'd have to consider it a roaring success. Can you imagine trying to do all the things you want and expect to be able to do today, using a computer designed in 1994, running software from 1994? POS would be kind words!
The actual purpose of the destruction of the principal historical record of mankind's greatest achievment was not to cover up a falsification, but to conceal an inconvenient truth, as Buzz Aldrin and Gordon Cooper have reported.
Given the way that supposed terrorist plots, highly touted in the media, consistently collapse under close inspection into circumstantial suppositions on the part of the prosecuting authorities, I seriously doubt that any such plot really existed, barring concrete evidence to the contrary with a credibly verifiable provenance.
Of course none of the restrictions mentioned in the article are effective or even relevant, in the final analysis: Anyone who is capable of constructing a useful carry-on explosive is capable of purchasing an R/C device for detonating the same explosive in the cargo hold, which is no less fatal.
Insipid sheep are made to feel that their crushing oppression is a positive avuncular benefit. The reality is that it is a system of control to create fear and suppress dissent.
Rights are a chimera, a fairy tale for the feeble-minded.
Drugs should be legalized because only then can they be controlled through licensing and taxation. Otherwise, they are under the control of black operatives: Criminals and the intelligence community.
Drugs should be legalized because it is in the interests of the majority to remove control of the drug profits from the hands of the intelligence community, and return it to the domain of public discourse and democratic accountability.
People do have dominion over their bodies (and more importantly their minds) regardless of the law. The law is the power of the state to effect injustice.
Currently criminalized chemicals should be taxed not in order to reduce state control, but to bring control into the open, to subject it to democratic discourse, and to make it effective rather than ineffective. Tax, yes, but also license. If you abuse a chemical to the harm of others, your license should be revoked.
There's no flaw in Newtonian physics demonstrated by your example. lim x-> 0 sin(x)/x = 1.0 Moreover, accellerating the end of the ladder to infinite velocity would require application of infinite force (presumably pulling the other end of the ladder).
If you have real relations with another thing, then it's a real thing, in your universe. Vice versa contrariwise. It's not a definition, but it does seem to follow from the very concept of a universe. How can you fail to have relations with a real extant, and how can you attain to them with an imaginary? When we say something IS, we mean that it IS in relation to other things that ARE. When we say something IS NOT, we are making an assertion about the lack of such real relations.
Photoshop doesn't do nearly so much to falsify the facts on the ground as does selective framing. Consider, for example, the photos of Firdos Square, and the toppling of the S. Hussein monument thereon.
If there is a region outside your light cone, and if all relations are mediated by interactions at less than or equal to c, then there are no relations between the outside region and you. To be in the same universe is to have relations. Thus, such a region is not in the same universe as you, or there are relations mediated by interactions at greater than c. For an example of the latter, consider primordial quantum entanglements.
If there is a region outside your light cone, and if all relations are mediated by interactions at c. For an example of the latter, consider primordial quantum entanglements.
Slashdot Mirror
Who gives a fig about world opinion? The issue is not world opinion, it's the truth. We'd be EVIL. That is defeat.
> Islamic terrorists
Oxymoron.
I like the way you exclude everyone except the great white father who is not a terrorist, oh no no, but a Godly Man in Authority who protects you from the terrible ugly semitic lunatics who hate your freedoms so much that they want to die in order to force you to give up all semblance of human rights and dignity, and all power to threaten tyrannical machiavellian mass murders who steal elections.
Of course, that's exactly what they did. If you look at the photos it should be obvious even to a layperson that the bombs were planted underneath the floorboards. It's an own-goal, dude. Hella strategy that.
> Saddam was writing checks to the families of suicide bombers, and loudly proclaiming his support for groups like Hamas that were willing to use terror against western interests.
"Western interests"? I think that term does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean bankrupting the US in order to prop up a plutocracy in Tel Aviv.
> Iran's concerns are that, for example, the US is the Great Satan
Easy problem to solve: Stop acting like Satan.
> he continued to shoot at the patroling aircraft
Every nation has the obligation to defend its territory and people against foreign incursion. The USUK axis has bombed
Iraq continuously from 1991 to now. Why? Because they are EVIL.
> Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth
Perhaps you should check your facts. That's a misquote. But given that it is the greatest threat to mankind in the world, a practitioner of genocide, a corrupter of nations, is stockpiling nuclear weapons, practices torture, and is suffuse with an ideology that regards the lives of outside group members as of less value than livestock, I think that it might be a good idea to eliminate the state of Israel before they finish executing the published plan to kill every Christian between the Nile and the Euphrates. Lord knows they're making hella progress on that front in Lebanon today.
One man's crap is another man's candy, it seems. Your candy looks like crap to me.
Personally, I'm all in favor of terrorist attacks using RPGs or, better, SAMs, as long as they take out traitors like Senators and Executives rather than the oppressed (meaning everyone who has one McMansion and two Mercedes SUVs or less).
Of course a real, sensible, effective terrorist attack like that would never occur, because it wouldn't be helpful to the administration or it's owners: It wouldn't increase fear and dependency, but rather reduce it.
> Either they're lying to us about their goals, or they have absolutely no sense of perspective, or they're viciously
> incompetent. Or some combination of the three. I just can't come up with any other explanations.
Why would you need to come up with explanations other than the correct ones?
Insecurity so bad that you need a comforting authority figure to tell you
where your ass ends and the hole in the ground begins?
(This is rhetorical, not directed at you, MadDog Bob-2.)
Like a stack of register windows. SPARC even.
But, all of those problems would cease to be relevant if a few K gates were present on every DRAM die, implementing a CPU with latencies to memory that no COTS chip designer would dare to dream about in his wildest fancies.
> It's nice that you can build a Forth machine with about 4000 gates, but who cares today?
Now put one of those CPUs on the RAM chip for every 256KB of RAM. Think about the petaflops that result
from a decent sized array of those. Not MDGRAPE3 petaflops mind you, but real, general-purpose, linpack
smacking petaflops, for pennies on the gigaflop.
I care.
You can, in fact, load microcode into many recent Intel CPUs. And you can, in fact, thereby
make it faster to perform certain specialized tasks. It is concievable, even, that you could
make a superior ISA, in both design and performance terms.
Programming to the bare metal is more closely akin to VLIW/EPIC ISA programming than it is to
RISC programming. Whereas RISC designs attempt to eliminate microcode from the stack in favor of
a highly orthogonalized ISA, VLIW designs essentially incorporate the microcode into each opcode,
thus giving the programmer the ability to schedule the gates on functional units manually. The
Intel/HP Itanic is an example of such an architecture (although generally distinguished from
classical -- e.g. Multiflow -- VLIW through the use of the marketing term EPIC).
Dang, I had a plan to rake in the bucks, but the yokels refused to give me an adultcheck id for TuringMachines.com.
Sometimes yes, often no.
The reason we have the x86 architecture today as a de facto standard is economy of scale. Were a wholesale conversion to occur, such that economies of scale applied to stack machines, or lisp machines, or jellybean machines, or *T machines, then those would likely execute your code faster than anything else in the commodity price bracket.
Even Intel and HP in alliance, with all their weight behind it, couldn't shake loose the x86 monopoly through revolutionary change, as witness the fate of (VLIW/)EPIC architecture in the Itanic. Now an evolutionary, gradualistic change could be made which converted the world to stack machines, and the result would probably be better than a perpetuation of x86 (although the impact of unanticipated technological change in the meanwhile might change that equation), but barring a centrally planned economy (which would fail it on other grounds) that sort of optimized path forward seems extremely unlikely.
If a system designed in 1973 was still operating in the early 80's, even in the guise of a POS, then I'd have to consider it a roaring success. Can you imagine trying to do all the things you want and expect to be able to do today, using a computer designed in 1994, running software from 1994? POS would be kind words!
In fact, Windows NT did ship for the PowerPC PREP platform, back in the late 90's.
As an advocate of cranial faraday protection (three independent studies find that cellular telephones cause brain cancer), I can assure you that people did in fact walk on the moon.
The actual purpose of the destruction of the principal historical record of mankind's greatest achievment was not to cover up a falsification, but to conceal an inconvenient truth, as Buzz Aldrin and Gordon Cooper have reported.
Given the way that supposed terrorist plots, highly touted in the media, consistently collapse under close inspection into circumstantial suppositions on the part of the prosecuting authorities, I seriously doubt that any such plot really existed, barring concrete evidence to the contrary with a credibly verifiable provenance.
Of course none of the restrictions mentioned in the article are effective or even relevant, in the final analysis: Anyone who is capable of constructing a useful carry-on explosive is capable of purchasing an R/C device for detonating the same explosive in the cargo hold, which is no less fatal.
Insipid sheep are made to feel that their crushing oppression is a positive avuncular benefit. The reality is that it is a system of control to create fear and suppress dissent.
Rights are a chimera, a fairy tale for the feeble-minded.
Drugs should be legalized because only then can they be controlled through licensing and taxation. Otherwise, they are under the control of black operatives: Criminals and the intelligence community.
Drugs should be legalized because it is in the interests of the majority to remove control of the drug profits from the hands of the intelligence community, and return it to the domain of public discourse and democratic accountability.
People do have dominion over their bodies (and more importantly their minds) regardless of the law. The law is the power of the state to effect injustice.
Currently criminalized chemicals should be taxed not in order to reduce state control, but to bring control into the open, to subject it to democratic discourse, and to make it effective rather than ineffective. Tax, yes, but also license. If you abuse a chemical to the harm of others, your license should be revoked.
We exchange credit cards amongst an extended and distributed group of compatriots.
Problem: exposes group affiliation to datamining.
We buy prepaid credit cards.
Problem: pay a financial premium.
We just use cash.
Problem: none.
But thanks to Rutkowskaya games can just give Vista the blue pill, and relegate it to TSR land.
There's no flaw in Newtonian physics demonstrated by your example. lim x-> 0 sin(x)/x = 1.0
Moreover, accellerating the end of the ladder to infinite velocity would require application
of infinite force (presumably pulling the other end of the ladder).
If you have real relations with another thing, then it's a real thing, in your universe. Vice versa contrariwise.
It's not a definition, but it does seem to follow from the very concept of a universe. How can you fail to have
relations with a real extant, and how can you attain to them with an imaginary? When we say something IS, we mean
that it IS in relation to other things that ARE. When we say something IS NOT, we are making an assertion about
the lack of such real relations.
Photoshop doesn't do nearly so much to falsify the facts on the ground as does selective framing. Consider, for example, the photos of Firdos Square, and the toppling of the S. Hussein monument thereon.
If there is a region outside your light cone, and if all relations are mediated by interactions at less than or equal to c, then there are no relations between the outside region and you. To be in the same universe is to have relations. Thus, such a region is not in the same universe as you, or there are relations mediated by interactions at greater than c. For an example of the latter, consider primordial quantum entanglements.
If there is a region outside your light cone, and if all relations are mediated by interactions at c. For an example of the latter, consider primordial quantum entanglements.