Generally reasonable. What you're ignoring is parallelism. Parallel algorithms have been generally ignored up until now, but now that CPUs with multiple simultaneous threads of execution are available, and even occasional multi-processor machines (PS/3?) are available, more work is going to go into them. We're just at the start of that range of development, so I don't see the S curve trailing off at anything like the rate that you do.
What I see happening is that the current kind of development will slow greatly in about 10-20 years, but during the same period multi-processors will become more common. I've seen this coming for quite some time (but now it's starting to actually show up) so it's really griped me when languages take a construction like "For each" and define it in a way that precludes parallel execution.
Actually, that's not altogether clear. If what the gas is doing is rendering the atmosphere opaque in on particular set of electromagnetic wavelengths, and those wavelengths are already more than 90% blocked by the current level, then you might not notice any measurable change.
It's a nit-pick, but it can be an important one when modeling these events.
Russia was, and China will be (is?) actually a threat. It's true that "Wall Street" subsidized the communist take-over from the Dumna, but it was more successful than they expected, and slipped out of their control. It was still a useful bogey-man up through the early 1950's, but then it became "too powerful", and became an actual threat. And they by then believed their own propaganda (always a danger in that kind of game).
Nixon was the one who defused the problem. He could, because he, having been involved in it during the earlier stages, still thought of it as a "paper tiger". (A reference to his "normalizing" relations with China.) Regan heated it up again, but in a diffuse kind of way (i.e., Star Wars. A first strike weapon, being sold and a defensive maneuver [one which wouldn't work for defense, though]. It probably also wouldn't work for offense, but nobody knew. Possibly nobody knows yet.) Russia tried to counter it, and the cost was so high that it pushed them over the top into bankruptcy. (Actually, looking at the costs a few years in the future caused them to enter bankruptcy before they had to, so they saved SOMETHING. I'll admit the timing really surprised me.)
But it's also true that all this is my reconstruction of what must have been going on. I can't prove it. I don't have any hard evidence. But I doubt that you do either.
So to my mind, this is an example of an arms race that one side "won". Won is in quoted, because in doing so we have grossly perverted the country. Perhaps you could say that Russia won the arms race, because their country improved, while ours decayed in wealth (as opposed to illth). But then they paid a higher price during the arms race... so maybe not.
Generally the countries that win during an arms race are the ones that manage to stay out of it. Generally the species that win during an arms race are the ones that manage to stay out of it. But there are exceptions. Humans were in an arms race against all sizable predators. I think that humans won that arms race...and even the non-competing animals lost. (The one against the virulent microbes is still in process, with the eventual victor uncertain...but the odds look good for the humans. The upcoming one against the sulfur bacteria is uncertain. So far most people don't even see it as coming, and I'm not specialist. [Synopsis: Global warming becalms the oceans. Benthic bacteria generate lots of sulpherous gases, which diffuse through the oceans, binding to free oxygen. Oxygen levels fall. Near and above the oceans they begin seeping into the air, and again the bind to oxygen. Oxygen levels fall. Likelihood: Uncertain. Seems to have happened a couple of times before.])
Arms races generally cause each side to develop a particular advantage to an extreme. As grazers become more difficult prey, their attackers develop stronger jaws and longer teeth, until you end up with saber tooth tigers and mammoths. But this extra weaponry and armament is so expensive to maintain that something external to the arms race kills off both sides.
Then there's the case of Athens vs. Sparta. That lasted a long time, corrupting both cities, until and external conqueror took them both. They'd spent so much time on attack and defense, that they hadn't any time for growth. (I think their populations had actually declined.) So Alexander had Greece as his first conquest.
3) Since it's the antenna that's broadcasting the radiation, this is time to:
1. get an extension cord for the antenna
2. put on you tin foil hat
3. put an insulating layer over the hat and
4. mount the antenna on top of the assemblage
This gives you the extra advantage of at the same time protecting yourself against brain control waves. P.S.: Be careful. One study has shown that aluminum foil hats actually act as antennas and increase the signal at the brain, so only use a genuine Tin Foil Hat.:-)
I'll leave it at that, since getting into the full history would take way too long. That said, I dont *support* what Slick Willy did, but his impeachment was nothing more than an orchestratedmedia frenzy.
Which just means that you've got to start lying at the very beginning, so there's *NO* point in time where the snapshot is accurate. Puff yourself up a little, or a lot. Vary it. Become a fly-weight boxing champion. An Aikido master. A pastry chef. (I've just got a few hobbies.)
Proprietary information, yes. But who owns it? Certainly Real doesn't. They don't appear to have ever has possession of it.
So what they're selling appears to be information that THEY own. OK so far. But it's information whose sole value appears to be enabling it's possessors to do something illegal. So we've got to suspect that the purchasers of this information don't have clean motives. Except, *possibly*, for Real, were they a purchaser.
I'm not sure what they're doing is, or ought to be, illegal. It appears to be immoral and unethical. But the immoral and unethical part doesn't involve refusing to give the information to Real. There's no grounds that I can see for saying that's an obligation on their part. It's selling to their normal customers that appears to be immoral, and, perhaps, OUGHT to be illegal. If you could word the law carefully enough. But that's tricky. Perhaps it's safest to just leave that unlegislated.
What Real ought to do is sign one of their employees up for the list...presuming that it doesn't involve NDA agreements.
And I'm told it's already in the Debian Etch (stable) tree. Sid (unstable) is expected to have it soon. I don't know when testing would get it. Usually no less than a week after Sid, but if this were seen as sufficiently important they could bend the rules.
Presumably Ubuntu, etc. also have this en route already. (I'd worry more, but I'm the only user of my machine...so the "other users" are system processes (Apache, etc. I don't mean core system processes.)
I trust you realize that if those arguments are valid, then every single country on earth is justified in violently invading the US?
Let's keep it simple. It was an immoral invasion with no acceptable justification. I'd just as soon not say that other people are justified in invading my home.
The idea that you were taught from theologians comes from two sources: 1) The quote from you that I used: "even learned about "Punctured" (I think you mean "Punctuated") Equilibrium in my 'religion' science curriculum" 2) The quality of understanding of the theory of evolution that you possess.
I'll admit that the sentence fragment is so ungrammatical that it might not mean what I understood it to mean. If so, I can't figure out what you meant.
It still goes on. There's an unofficial crime around here called "driving while being black or brown". Interestingly enough, black police officers are often the enforcers. Sometimes it's hard to explain people.
Why do you believe that the threat was really feared?
According to what I have heard, before Bush started really beating the drums for war he was given a briefing from the CIA which said (roughly) "Saddam is not threat to anyone outside his own country."
So I think that Bush made certain that he was tackling a really weak opponent, and one that had been forcibly disarmed, and which he KNEW had been forcibly disarmed. Then, having picked a suitable target, he started inventing justifiers. (Which you seem to believe that he believed.)
There's this little flaw in your presumptions...called Diebold. (Premier Vote System?)
Every electronic voting machine on the market has, in tests, been found easy to rig. (Actually, that should be "Every electronic voting machine that's been tested", but I think they've covered all the major brands.)
We've changed vote fixing. No longer are fraudulent elections a local phenomena. Now they're country wide. Believe the reported votes if you want to. I'm voting out of habit rather than out of belief that anybody counts it honestly.
It only doesn't make sense if you presume their actual goals are aligned with their stated goals. If the goals are to induce relatively powerful people to feel helpless and threatened, it makes a lot more sense.
Sorry, but it *IS* compatible with GPLv3. I believe that they included a special statement in the GPLv3 license that said it was, but I'd have to check that again before asserting it.
(So possibly it's the GPLv3 is compatible with the Affero license...but the resulting code must be released Affero.)
You're probably right about the word, but if you "even learned about "Punctured" (I think you mean "Punctuated") Equilibrium in my 'religion' science curriculum", then I doubt that you learned very much about it, or from an unbiased source. Very few theologians are competent to teach evolution in ANY of the branches. Most sensible ones acknowledge this.
If you don't know what data support evolution, then that's evidence that you haven't looked in a reliable source. (Actually, it's evidence that you don't even read decent popularizations of science,) However, to see the most reliable evidence one needs to look at the species that fossilize most readily. Some look at snails, some at various mollusks, some at Foraminifera. In such places evolution of species can be readily seen. Species that rarely fossilize don't provide outstanding evidence, even though they are more interesting, and as such they were the original evidence used. So that's several different lines of evidence. It can also be seen acting in the manner predicted by theory in various artificial systems, from computer programs (look up genetic programming) to artificial ecosystems. (The classic here is the evolution of RNA to make a particular enzyme in the lab.)
Sorry, but you appear to mistake assertions for scientific argument.
True, the *word* evolution is vague. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is specific. So is the "Modern Synthesis", "Punctured Equilibrium", etc. They differ only in the details, but those details can be quite important. Each particular theory is specific. Your's doesn't appear to be.
If you have significant data, you did not choose to present it. This causes me to believe that your three statement characterization of yourself is correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally reasonable. What you're ignoring is parallelism. Parallel algorithms have been generally ignored up until now, but now that CPUs with multiple simultaneous threads of execution are available, and even occasional multi-processor machines (PS/3?) are available, more work is going to go into them. We're just at the start of that range of development, so I don't see the S curve trailing off at anything like the rate that you do.
What I see happening is that the current kind of development will slow greatly in about 10-20 years, but during the same period multi-processors will become more common. I've seen this coming for quite some time (but now it's starting to actually show up) so it's really griped me when languages take a construction like "For each" and define it in a way that precludes parallel execution.
Actually, that's not altogether clear. If what the gas is doing is rendering the atmosphere opaque in on particular set of electromagnetic wavelengths, and those wavelengths are already more than 90% blocked by the current level, then you might not notice any measurable change.
It's a nit-pick, but it can be an important one when modeling these events.
Sounds like it's time to look for a different ISP. If not cable or DSL, perhaps someone is running a wireless service near you.
You could be right...but I don't think so.
Russia was, and China will be (is?) actually a threat. It's true that "Wall Street" subsidized the communist take-over from the Dumna, but it was more successful than they expected, and slipped out of their control. It was still a useful bogey-man up through the early 1950's, but then it became "too powerful", and became an actual threat. And they by then believed their own propaganda (always a danger in that kind of game).
Nixon was the one who defused the problem. He could, because he, having been involved in it during the earlier stages, still thought of it as a "paper tiger". (A reference to his "normalizing" relations with China.) Regan heated it up again, but in a diffuse kind of way (i.e., Star Wars. A first strike weapon, being sold and a defensive maneuver [one which wouldn't work for defense, though]. It probably also wouldn't work for offense, but nobody knew. Possibly nobody knows yet.) Russia tried to counter it, and the cost was so high that it pushed them over the top into bankruptcy. (Actually, looking at the costs a few years in the future caused them to enter bankruptcy before they had to, so they saved SOMETHING. I'll admit the timing really surprised me.)
But it's also true that all this is my reconstruction of what must have been going on. I can't prove it. I don't have any hard evidence. But I doubt that you do either.
So to my mind, this is an example of an arms race that one side "won". Won is in quoted, because in doing so we have grossly perverted the country. Perhaps you could say that Russia won the arms race, because their country improved, while ours decayed in wealth (as opposed to illth). But then they paid a higher price during the arms race... so maybe not.
Generally the countries that win during an arms race are the ones that manage to stay out of it. Generally the species that win during an arms race are the ones that manage to stay out of it. But there are exceptions. Humans were in an arms race against all sizable predators. I think that humans won that arms race...and even the non-competing animals lost. (The one against the virulent microbes is still in process, with the eventual victor uncertain...but the odds look good for the humans. The upcoming one against the sulfur bacteria is uncertain. So far most people don't even see it as coming, and I'm not specialist. [Synopsis: Global warming becalms the oceans. Benthic bacteria generate lots of sulpherous gases, which diffuse through the oceans, binding to free oxygen. Oxygen levels fall. Near and above the oceans they begin seeping into the air, and again the bind to oxygen. Oxygen levels fall. Likelihood: Uncertain. Seems to have happened a couple of times before.])
Arms races generally cause each side to develop a particular advantage to an extreme. As grazers become more difficult prey, their attackers develop stronger jaws and longer teeth, until you end up with saber tooth tigers and mammoths. But this extra weaponry and armament is so expensive to maintain that something external to the arms race kills off both sides.
Then there's the case of Athens vs. Sparta. That lasted a long time, corrupting both cities, until and external conqueror took them both. They'd spent so much time on attack and defense, that they hadn't any time for growth. (I think their populations had actually declined.) So Alexander had Greece as his first conquest.
3) Since it's the antenna that's broadcasting the radiation, this is time to:
:-)
1. get an extension cord for the antenna
2. put on you tin foil hat
3. put an insulating layer over the hat
and
4. mount the antenna on top of the assemblage
This gives you the extra advantage of at the same time protecting yourself against brain control waves.
P.S.: Be careful. One study has shown that aluminum foil hats actually act as antennas and increase the signal at the brain, so only use a genuine Tin Foil Hat.
That is, indeed, the correct answer. Now convince Nancy Pelosi.
Why do you believe the reported election returns to be anything similar to how people voted?
I'll grant that if MIGHT be true. But given the wide distribution of easily corruptible voting machines I see no reason to believe it.
I'll leave it at that, since getting into the full history would take way too long. That said, I dont *support* what Slick Willy did, but his impeachment was nothing more than a n orchestrated media frenzy.
Read your HG Wells.
Which just means that you've got to start lying at the very beginning, so there's *NO* point in time where the snapshot is accurate. Puff yourself up a little, or a lot. Vary it. Become a fly-weight boxing champion. An Aikido master. A pastry chef. (I've just got a few hobbies.)
Proprietary information, yes. But who owns it? Certainly Real doesn't. They don't appear to have ever has possession of it.
So what they're selling appears to be information that THEY own. OK so far. But it's information whose sole value appears to be enabling it's possessors to do something illegal. So we've got to suspect that the purchasers of this information don't have clean motives. Except, *possibly*, for Real, were they a purchaser.
I'm not sure what they're doing is, or ought to be, illegal. It appears to be immoral and unethical. But the immoral and unethical part doesn't involve refusing to give the information to Real. There's no grounds that I can see for saying that's an obligation on their part. It's selling to their normal customers that appears to be immoral, and, perhaps, OUGHT to be illegal. If you could word the law carefully enough. But that's tricky. Perhaps it's safest to just leave that unlegislated.
What Real ought to do is sign one of their employees up for the list...presuming that it doesn't involve NDA agreements.
And I'm told it's already in the Debian Etch (stable) tree. Sid (unstable) is expected to have it soon. I don't know when testing would get it. Usually no less than a week after Sid, but if this were seen as sufficiently important they could bend the rules.
Presumably Ubuntu, etc. also have this en route already. (I'd worry more, but I'm the only user of my machine...so the "other users" are system processes (Apache, etc. I don't mean core system processes.)
I trust you realize that if those arguments are valid, then every single country on earth is justified in violently invading the US?
Let's keep it simple. It was an immoral invasion with no acceptable justification. I'd just as soon not say that other people are justified in invading my home.
The idea that you were taught from theologians comes from two sources:
1) The quote from you that I used: "even learned about "Punctured" (I think you mean "Punctuated") Equilibrium in my 'religion' science curriculum"
2) The quality of understanding of the theory of evolution that you possess.
I'll admit that the sentence fragment is so ungrammatical that it might not mean what I understood it to mean. If so, I can't figure out what you meant.
That's because you believe what the government says about itself and its reasons. Don't. They lie much more often than they tell the truth.
It still goes on. There's an unofficial crime around here called "driving while being black or brown". Interestingly enough, black police officers are often the enforcers. Sometimes it's hard to explain people.
They've said it, but they lie so regularly that I see no reason to believe them.
Why do you believe that the threat was really feared?
According to what I have heard, before Bush started really beating the drums for war he was given a briefing from the CIA which said (roughly) "Saddam is not threat to anyone outside his own country."
So I think that Bush made certain that he was tackling a really weak opponent, and one that had been forcibly disarmed, and which he KNEW had been forcibly disarmed. Then, having picked a suitable target, he started inventing justifiers. (Which you seem to believe that he believed.)
There's this little flaw in your presumptions...called Diebold. (Premier Vote System?)
Every electronic voting machine on the market has, in tests, been found easy to rig. (Actually, that should be "Every electronic voting machine that's been tested", but I think they've covered all the major brands.)
We've changed vote fixing. No longer are fraudulent elections a local phenomena. Now they're country wide. Believe the reported votes if you want to. I'm voting out of habit rather than out of belief that anybody counts it honestly.
It only doesn't make sense if you presume their actual goals are aligned with their stated goals. If the goals are to induce relatively powerful people to feel helpless and threatened, it makes a lot more sense.
Sorry, but it *IS* compatible with GPLv3. I believe that they included a special statement in the GPLv3 license that said it was, but I'd have to check that again before asserting it.
(So possibly it's the GPLv3 is compatible with the Affero license...but the resulting code must be released Affero.)
You're probably right about the word, but if you "even learned about "Punctured" (I think you mean "Punctuated") Equilibrium in my 'religion' science curriculum", then I doubt that you learned very much about it, or from an unbiased source. Very few theologians are competent to teach evolution in ANY of the branches. Most sensible ones acknowledge this.
If you don't know what data support evolution, then that's evidence that you haven't looked in a reliable source. (Actually, it's evidence that you don't even read decent popularizations of science,) However, to see the most reliable evidence one needs to look at the species that fossilize most readily. Some look at snails, some at various mollusks, some at Foraminifera. In such places evolution of species can be readily seen. Species that rarely fossilize don't provide outstanding evidence, even though they are more interesting, and as such they were the original evidence used. So that's several different lines of evidence. It can also be seen acting in the manner predicted by theory in various artificial systems, from computer programs (look up genetic programming) to artificial ecosystems. (The classic here is the evolution of RNA to make a particular enzyme in the lab.)
There's *LOTS* of evidence...if you care to look.
Sorry. Your memory is not totally trustworthy. You can never get certainty. What you can get that looks like it is belief.
Who gets to choose?
If MS gets to choose, then I believe that the assertion that the payment would be in MS stock is correct.
Sorry, but you appear to mistake assertions for scientific argument.
True, the *word* evolution is vague. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is specific. So is the "Modern Synthesis", "Punctured Equilibrium", etc. They differ only in the details, but those details can be quite important. Each particular theory is specific. Your's doesn't appear to be.
If you have significant data, you did not choose to present it. This causes me to believe that your three statement characterization of yourself is correct.