Christianity, or any religion for that matter is just a program running on a very complex system. Christians trying to prove things with science, that's got to one of the funnies things I've heard. Proving god through science. I think science is heading towards the proving of god's nonexistence
I agree completely that Christianity trying to prove their point on scientfic grounds is an excercise in stupidity and futility. Science is about trusting what you can observe and test for yourself, while Religion is about faith, which has nothing to do with a concept of proof or observations.
However, science does not concern itself with anything supernatural. The Evolution/Creation debate and the question of whether there is a god, many gods, or no god are two totally separate things. In the first issue, science will definately point to evolution - we got here somehow, and we have evidence lying around suggesting how it happened. We're busy piecing it all together. Science has no place in the question of whether there is a god or not. Science can not prove the existance of a god. A miracle could happen tomorrow that would remove all doubt in people's minds of there being a god, but science by definition looks for a natural explanation.
And science most definately cannot disprove the existance of a god. You can't prove He doesn't exist! How would you go about it? It's entirely a matter of personal beliefs in which science offers no insight one way or the other.
In Pi, a guy is trying to find patterns in everything. For instance (more like mostly), the stock market. He's a number theory type who believes the true meaning of life takes the form of a deep understanding of numbers, and he's got a computer working on various problems for him.
It goes haywire one day and dumps a bunch of gibberish. It turns out that this 200-some digit number is the Key To All Things, and helps him call out stock trade prices before they show up on the screen, among other things.
The thing that made me think of this is that a certain religious group of Jewish numerologists wanted to get their hands on that number, believing it to be the true name of God.
I like ZDTV much in the same way I like some of the more "out-there" religious programming.... you know like sc*ntology commericials, or "The Pagan Invasion"...(if anyone remembers that!) It's funny and incredibly aggrevating at the same time.
I know EXACTLY what you mean. You know that show on the TBN "superstation" called "Praise the Lord"? Sometimes I would watch that transfixed, unable to turn my head away as I screamed silently in my mind: "NOOOOO!! Don't you guys realise how DUMB you are????"
Example: one day the show started out with a couple ditzy co-hosts - a man and a woman. After every sentance they would look down, half close their eyes and praise His holy name (I believe the subject was the incredible beauty of the state of Oklahoma) as they kept agreeing with each other about everything. Then the fun started. They brought out a guest who had the following credential: he was a Scientist (you know, one of those smart, scary people who usually like to intimidate good, decent god fearin' folk with their fancy theories and equations and papers) who used to believe in evolution until he reasoned it out and saw the Light. Of course, I wasn't going to turn it off now! I was anxious to hear his line of reasoning that put evolution to such shame.
He didn't dissapoint. Here is a sample of his explanation (as well as I can remember it), which I swear I am neither making up nor embellishing:
Noah's Great Flood served to lower the air pressure of the Earth's atmosphere to it's present day levels. In the early days of the Old Testament, the air pressure was much higher. Since higher air pressure means more oxygen, people could live much longer back then. This accounts for the very long lives of people in those early days...
And it went on and on with a lot of stuff I forget.
ZDTV can give me exactly the same kind of perverse fascination. I'll watch their "Silicon Spin" show as John Dvorak brings on a panel of "pundits" to offer their profound insights into the future of technology. Usually these people are fairly clueless, and when they have somebody good that person usually doesn't have the time to say what they want to say. In a half hour show (about 20 mins of air time) they will tackle 4 or 5 different topics. That's enough time to briefly introduce the topic, go twice around the table for opinions, and then have Dvorak cut them off and go to a commercial break. Funny that a network that plays reruns of earlier shows constantly can't give them a little more time.
Segfault does exactly that: a big clown head with the words "FAKE NEWS".
But that spoils the fun. I personally don't see this as a problem at all. In fact, I read this IPO article on the Onion last week and got a good laugh out of it. When I saw it here, I eagerly read through comments, because it is statistically likely that some people just won't get it. heh heh heh... Those comments should be moderated up as "funny" IMHO
GPL: You are encouraged to give copies to anyone and everyone. You are encouraged to make any changes you like, but you MUST make those changes available under the same terms.
BSD: You are encouraged to give copies to anyone and everyone. You can make any changes you like, and you can use any license you like for said changes.
Shareware: You are encouraged to give copies to anyone and everyone. DO NOT make any changes.
Since this book promises eternal damnation and hellfire if you add, subtract, or alter anything in it, I would call it the world's first piece of shareware.
Here in the US our government is trying as hard as it can to keep encryption out of common use and especially strong encryption.
And in Germany, the government is DONATING MONEY to an open effort working on strong encryption.
That makes a statement all right. I hope (because I am naieve) that our government will take note.
-- grappler
How can they prove it if he does so anonymously?
on
Usenet Gag Order
·
· Score: 2
It is trivial to post anonymously to a newsgroup. In fact, he could continue posting with his same nickname, and even continue to be annoying and if he is half competent, it would be impossible to prove it's him.
Of course that would be an extremely loser-ish thing to do. He could also just assume a different alias and write productive, on-topic posts. This would make the original problem go away, but he would still be violating the order.
The point is, they don't seem to be considering the fact that it is inherently impossible to regulate usenet, and that this ruling is basically unenforceable.
does anyone know of a UNIX command line filter that can convert plaintext to 3l337 text? There are some cool things one could do with that.
Actually, what I would really like is a proxy server that "Eleetizes" all communication going through it, while keeping links and such intact. That could be fun.
I could easily write the former myself if it does not exist, but I don't know how to write a proxy server...
But if you can send an anonymous post... then how can I hold you accountable for lies you spread about my product?
Well, obviously you can't. I don't see that as a big deal though, because if I take steps to make myself anonymous, I also lose the credibility that I would have if I had put my digital signature on it instead. If I go slandering you on usenet with anonymous messages, nobody (or nearly nobody) will care because I would just be some loser out there. I would rather see the option of anonymity stay than see a system designed to hold everybody accountable for their postings.
There really doesn't need to be an arguement at all, for two reasons:
o It would be stupid to argue about a little thing like that. People know what you mean.
o For those that really do care, it can be easily settled by playing that sound file of Linus pronouncing it. It can be had in lots of places, and it plays when you use sndconfig to configure your sound card. He does use the short i version, but his foreign accent make it obvious why there is confusion here in the US but not there. He pronounces his name as something closer to "Leenus" (say it keeping your mouth only partly open) and says "Linux" exactly the same way as his name, changing only the consonant at the end, as in "Leenux".
Saying it like that would sound weird here in the states, so most people use a short i.
The way things are right now, you can choose whether you want to have an anonymous identity or an unforgeable one.
Want others to be sure it's you? Sign your message with your private PGP key, which is in turn signed by a mutually trusted party. To pretend to be you, someone would need to get your private key.
Want to be completely anonymous? Send an email through a nice long mixmaster chain. Then only the first remailer in the chain has any way of possibly knowing where the message came from, and only the last has any way of knowing where the message is headed. And if you encrypt the original with the recipent's public key, only they can know what it says. And if you want a response, you can use a nym.
The point is that both these things are possible already, but they are not in wide use, and a person has to go to some trouble to accomplish an unforgeable or anonymous identity.
The way things are right now, you can choose whether you want to have an anonymous identity or an unforgeable one.
Want others to be sure it's you? Sign your message with your private PGP key, which is in turn signed by a mutually trusted party. To pretend to be you, someone would need to get your private key.
Want to be completely anonymous? Send an email through a nice long mixmaster chain. Then only the first remailer in the chain has any way of possibly knowing where the message came from, and only the last has any way of knowing where the message is headed. And if you encrypt the original with the recipent's public key, only they can know what it says. And if you want a response, you can use a nym.
The point is that both these things are possible already, but they are not in wide use, and a person has to go to some trouble to accomplish an unforgeable or anonymous identity.
It requires a LOT of energy to recycle something, and contrary to what suburban SUV-drivin feel-good people thing, power doesn't come out of the wall for free. It needs to come from a coal, hydro (which ISN'T eco-friendly - flooded land produces methane, worse for the environment than coal!) or nuclear plant.
This might be true for some things (I'm not sure about cellphones) but it usually takes more energy to make a new thing than to recycle an old one, when you consider all the costs of getting new raw materials. It's an often repeated fact that recycling a pop can saves enough energy to run a TV for an hour.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Recycling is last, because it doesn't work very well! Why does everyone forget about the first two, which work _Really_ well. Cut down, and reuse.
Sure, but "Throw away" could be tacked onto the end of the list as an even worse option. Selling phones that are meant to be used for several years would fit under "reuse".
Lying means you tell a falsehood that you know is a falsehood. I have no doubt in my mind that Gates believes in his heart that everything he wrote is the undistorted truth, and that he has been fundamentally Cheated and Wronged (tm) by the DOJ.
I concede that MS did accelerate the growth of the internet (though they had nothing to do with its development or beginnings) and they did drive hardware prices down (by making faster hardware a constant necessity). Other than that though, they were not good for the industry or consumer.
I bet he believes that he has been Chosen as the One to bring computing to the world, and that anything he did to drive people out of business is justified because it was a means to his said goal.
Are they releasing the specs/source as well so that drivers may be written for other platforms? I would *really* like to see BeOS drivers for this. It seems like the kind of hardware BeOS was made to run.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that a failure of that particular experiment would prove that the market is perfectly random. Actually, it would be quite frankly amazing (and extremely cool) if you actually ended up with plants that could beat the market.
The original comment I made was an attempt at humor. It is my hope that it made some people laugh...
-- grappler
Alright! A genetic algorithm to beat the market!
on
Quickie Fu
·
· Score: 2
Here's what you do: set up a few hundred plants like that. The ones that do well get the light and water so they live and go to seed and breed with each other. The ones that don't die.
Pretty soon you'll have a super race of market savvy yucca plants!
I've seen 4 or 5 different versions, and none of them do a good job of duplicating the screens in the movie. Something where the falling columns go at different speeds would be great.
Anyone know if a good reproduction of the effect exists somewhere?
see, "funny" in this type of article usually happens when the target (in this case, Micros~1) is savagely skewered by a lethal combination of witty writing and ironic truth. The former was sorely lacking.
Was anybody crying with laughter over this article? I hope not, cuz it just wasn't good writing and it wasn't funny, and it certainly didn't say anything new. I could write a piece of crap like that in five minutes, easy.
I know humor is relative, but for stuff like this an exception has to be made. It reminds me of that "slashdot parody" site Roblimo posted called "hashsnot" or something like that. Ugh.
I'm not being a grouch and saying don't put humorous stuff up. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite - don't put up sorry attempts at humor. You guys should up your standards a little on what gets posted.
Slashdot Mirror
Christianity, or any religion for that matter is just a program running on a very complex system. Christians trying to prove things with science, that's got to one of the funnies things I've heard. Proving god through science. I think science is heading towards the proving of god's nonexistence
I agree completely that Christianity trying to prove their point on scientfic grounds is an excercise in stupidity and futility. Science is about trusting what you can observe and test for yourself, while Religion is about faith, which has nothing to do with a concept of proof or observations.
However, science does not concern itself with anything supernatural. The Evolution/Creation debate and the question of whether there is a god, many gods, or no god are two totally separate things. In the first issue, science will definately point to evolution - we got here somehow, and we have evidence lying around suggesting how it happened. We're busy piecing it all together. Science has no place in the question of whether there is a god or not. Science can not prove the existance of a god. A miracle could happen tomorrow that would remove all doubt in people's minds of there being a god, but science by definition looks for a natural explanation.
And science most definately cannot disprove the existance of a god. You can't prove He doesn't exist! How would you go about it? It's entirely a matter of personal beliefs in which science offers no insight one way or the other.
--
grappler
In Pi, a guy is trying to find patterns in everything. For instance (more like mostly), the stock market. He's a number theory type who believes the true meaning of life takes the form of a deep understanding of numbers, and he's got a computer working on various problems for him.
It goes haywire one day and dumps a bunch of gibberish. It turns out that this 200-some digit number is the Key To All Things, and helps him call out stock trade prices before they show up on the screen, among other things.
The thing that made me think of this is that a certain religious group of Jewish numerologists wanted to get their hands on that number, believing it to be the true name of God.
--
grappler
I like ZDTV much in the same way I like some of the more "out-there" religious programming.... you know like sc*ntology commericials, or "The Pagan Invasion"...(if anyone remembers that!) It's funny and incredibly aggrevating at the same time.
I know EXACTLY what you mean. You know that show on the TBN "superstation" called "Praise the Lord"? Sometimes I would watch that transfixed, unable to turn my head away as I screamed silently in my mind: "NOOOOO!! Don't you guys realise how DUMB you are????"
Example: one day the show started out with a couple ditzy co-hosts - a man and a woman. After every sentance they would look down, half close their eyes and praise His holy name (I believe the subject was the incredible beauty of the state of Oklahoma) as they kept agreeing with each other about everything. Then the fun started. They brought out a guest who had the following credential: he was a Scientist (you know, one of those smart, scary people who usually like to intimidate good, decent god fearin' folk with their fancy theories and equations and papers) who used to believe in evolution until he reasoned it out and saw the Light. Of course, I wasn't going to turn it off now! I was anxious to hear his line of reasoning that put evolution to such shame.
He didn't dissapoint. Here is a sample of his explanation (as well as I can remember it), which I swear I am neither making up nor embellishing:
Noah's Great Flood served to lower the air pressure of the Earth's atmosphere to it's present day levels. In the early days of the Old Testament, the air pressure was much higher. Since higher air pressure means more oxygen, people could live much longer back then. This accounts for the very long lives of people in those early days...
And it went on and on with a lot of stuff I forget.
ZDTV can give me exactly the same kind of perverse fascination. I'll watch their "Silicon Spin" show as John Dvorak brings on a panel of "pundits" to offer their profound insights into the future of technology. Usually these people are fairly clueless, and when they have somebody good that person usually doesn't have the time to say what they want to say. In a half hour show (about 20 mins of air time) they will tackle 4 or 5 different topics. That's enough time to briefly introduce the topic, go twice around the table for opinions, and then have Dvorak cut them off and go to a commercial break. Funny that a network that plays reruns of earlier shows constantly can't give them a little more time.
--
grappler
and it can be summed up in a single (psuedo) word:
MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
grappler
Segfault does exactly that: a big clown head with the words "FAKE NEWS".
But that spoils the fun. I personally don't see this as a problem at all. In fact, I read this IPO article on the Onion last week and got a good laugh out of it. When I saw it here, I eagerly read through comments, because it is statistically likely that some people just won't get it. heh heh heh... Those comments should be moderated up as "funny" IMHO
--
grappler
GPL: You are encouraged to give copies to anyone and everyone. You are encouraged to make any changes you like, but you MUST make those changes available under the same terms.
BSD: You are encouraged to give copies to anyone and everyone. You can make any changes you like, and you can use any license you like for said changes.
Shareware: You are encouraged to give copies to anyone and everyone. DO NOT make any changes.
Since this book promises eternal damnation and hellfire if you add, subtract, or alter anything in it, I would call it the world's first piece of shareware.
--
grappler
Here in the US our government is trying as hard as it can to keep encryption out of common use and especially strong encryption.
And in Germany, the government is DONATING MONEY to an open effort working on strong encryption.
That makes a statement all right. I hope (because I am naieve) that our government will take note.
--
grappler
It is trivial to post anonymously to a newsgroup. In fact, he could continue posting with his same nickname, and even continue to be annoying and if he is half competent, it would be impossible to prove it's him.
Of course that would be an extremely loser-ish thing to do. He could also just assume a different alias and write productive, on-topic posts. This would make the original problem go away, but he would still be violating the order.
The point is, they don't seem to be considering the fact that it is inherently impossible to regulate usenet, and that this ruling is basically unenforceable.
--
grappler
does anyone know of a UNIX command line filter that can convert plaintext to 3l337 text? There are some cool things one could do with that.
Actually, what I would really like is a proxy server that "Eleetizes" all communication going through it, while keeping links and such intact. That could be fun.
I could easily write the former myself if it does not exist, but I don't know how to write a proxy server...
--
grappler
But if you can send an anonymous post... then how can I hold you accountable for lies you
spread about my product?
Well, obviously you can't. I don't see that as a big deal though, because if I take steps to make myself anonymous, I also lose the credibility that I would have if I had put my digital signature on it instead. If I go slandering you on usenet with anonymous messages, nobody (or nearly nobody) will care because I would just be some loser out there. I would rather see the option of anonymity stay than see a system designed to hold everybody accountable for their postings.
--
grappler
Somehow, I don't think W. Richard Stevens would make for a very good interview.
Please don't moderate this as "funny" because it isn't. I'm just saying that your list hasn't really gotten the fine-tooth comb treatment.
--
grappler
There really doesn't need to be an arguement at all, for two reasons:
o It would be stupid to argue about a little thing like that. People know what you mean.
o For those that really do care, it can be easily settled by playing that sound file of Linus pronouncing it. It can be had in lots of places, and it plays when you use sndconfig to configure your sound card. He does use the short i version, but his foreign accent make it obvious why there is confusion here in the US but not there. He pronounces his name as something closer to "Leenus" (say it keeping your mouth only partly open) and says "Linux" exactly the same way as his name, changing only the consonant at the end, as in "Leenux".
Saying it like that would sound weird here in the states, so most people use a short i.
--
grappler
The Austin Powers Theory
This theory states that sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads are more
deadly than mutated sea-bass.
I assume you meant to say "laser" beams, right?
--
grappler
The way things are right now, you can choose whether you want to have an anonymous identity or an unforgeable one.
Want others to be sure it's you? Sign your message with your private PGP key, which is in turn signed by a mutually trusted party. To pretend to be you, someone would need to get your private key.
Want to be completely anonymous? Send an email through a nice long mixmaster chain. Then only the first remailer in the chain has any way of possibly knowing where the message came from, and only the last has any way of knowing where the message is headed. And if you encrypt the original with the recipent's public key, only they can know what it says. And if you want a response, you can use a nym.
The point is that both these things are possible already, but they are not in wide use, and a person has to go to some trouble to accomplish an unforgeable or anonymous identity.
--
grappler
The way things are right now, you can choose whether you want to have an anonymous identity or an unforgeable one.
Want others to be sure it's you? Sign your message with your private PGP key, which is in turn signed by a mutually trusted party. To pretend to be you, someone would need to get your private key.
Want to be completely anonymous? Send an email through a nice long mixmaster chain. Then only the first remailer in the chain has any way of possibly knowing where the message came from, and only the last has any way of knowing where the message is headed. And if you encrypt the original with the recipent's public key, only they can know what it says. And if you want a response, you can use a nym.
The point is that both these things are possible already, but they are not in wide use, and a person has to go to some trouble to accomplish an unforgeable or anonymous identity.
--
grappler
It requires a LOT of energy to recycle something, and contrary to what suburban SUV-drivin feel-good people thing, power doesn't come out of the wall for free. It needs to come from a coal, hydro (which ISN'T eco-friendly - flooded land produces methane, worse for the environment than coal!) or nuclear plant.
This might be true for some things (I'm not sure about cellphones) but it usually takes more energy to make a new thing than to recycle an old one, when you consider all the costs of getting new raw materials. It's an often repeated fact that recycling a pop can saves enough energy to run a TV for an hour.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Recycling is last, because it doesn't work very well! Why does
everyone forget about the first two, which work _Really_ well. Cut down, and reuse.
Sure, but "Throw away" could be tacked onto the end of the list as an even worse option. Selling phones that are meant to be used for several years would fit under "reuse".
--
grappler
Tesla is to Torvalds, as Edison is to Gates
I assume that what you meant to say is "Tesla was to Edison as Torvalds is to Gates" right?
Good points though - geniuses have it tough.
--
grappler
Lying means you tell a falsehood that you know is a falsehood. I have no doubt in my mind that Gates believes in his heart that everything he wrote is the undistorted truth, and that he has been fundamentally Cheated and Wronged (tm) by the DOJ.
I concede that MS did accelerate the growth of the internet (though they had nothing to do with its development or beginnings) and they did drive hardware prices down (by making faster hardware a constant necessity). Other than that though, they were not good for the industry or consumer.
I bet he believes that he has been Chosen as the One to bring computing to the world, and that anything he did to drive people out of business is justified because it was a means to his said goal.
--
grappler
Are they releasing the specs/source as well so that drivers may be written for other platforms? I would *really* like to see BeOS drivers for this. It seems like the kind of hardware BeOS was made to run.
--
grappler
I wouldn't go so far as to say that a failure of that particular experiment would prove that the market is perfectly random. Actually, it would be quite frankly amazing (and extremely cool) if you actually ended up with plants that could beat the market.
The original comment I made was an attempt at humor. It is my hope that it made some people laugh...
--
grappler
Here's what you do: set up a few hundred plants like that. The ones that do well get the light and water so they live and go to seed and breed with each other. The ones that don't die.
Pretty soon you'll have a super race of market savvy yucca plants!
--
grappler
I've seen 4 or 5 different versions, and none of them do a good job of duplicating the screens in the movie. Something where the falling columns go at different speeds would be great.
Anyone know if a good reproduction of the effect exists somewhere?
--
grappler
have you checked out Abisource? I think that's more or less the kind of thing you mean.
They are working on productivity apps, but I believe they also have a repository of useful code that would fall under the "components" heading.
Of course, I could be wrong, in which case it would be just swell if somebody would correct me...
--
grappler
see, "funny" in this type of article usually happens when the target (in this case, Micros~1) is savagely skewered by a lethal combination of witty writing and ironic truth. The former was sorely lacking.
Was anybody crying with laughter over this article? I hope not, cuz it just wasn't good writing and it wasn't funny, and it certainly didn't say anything new. I could write a piece of crap like that in five minutes, easy.
I know humor is relative, but for stuff like this an exception has to be made. It reminds me of that "slashdot parody" site Roblimo posted called "hashsnot" or something like that. Ugh.
I'm not being a grouch and saying don't put humorous stuff up. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite - don't put up sorry attempts at humor. You guys should up your standards a little on what gets posted.
--
grappler
Yahoo would be better off not censoring anything, because if they do, somebody is very likely to find them liable for something they did not censor.
If they know what is good for them, they will be perfectly neutral about it and stay away from actively censoring their site.
--
grappler