If the authorities have a proper search warrant, I don't see why he can't be compelled to give his encryption keys. It is no different than being compelled to provide the key to a locked desk. The location of the key is irrelevant, whether it be in his mind or on his keychain.
The first time I drove down Franklin Avenue in Los Angeles and saw the sign in front of their building that says "Church Of Scientology Celebrity Centre International" I was pretty sure this wasn't really a religion.
If teleporting a human requires making a copy and destroying the original, then the obvious question is: is the copy still me? This raises the interesting question of what exactly constitutes personal identity. Here is a very entertaining and amusing read on the topic by Daniel Dennet, a first-rate philosopher and all-around funny guy.
I recall seeing the results of a recent survey in which people were asked how they would recognize when they were living in "the future." The overwhelming majority answered, "when we have flying cars." Is this getting us any closer? Does anyone else remember seeing this survey?
With all this talk of computer interfaces being called desktops, why doesn't someone come up with one that actually works like a real desktop?
On my real desktop I have various objects: a computer, pictures of my wife and kids, a printer, a telephone, a rolodex, various folders with documents for projects I'm working on, a cd holder, a file cabinet, a calendar, a clock, etc.
My computer "desktop" emulates some of this reasonably well. What it fails miserably at is how it keeps my projects organized. What I DON'T have on my real desktop are folders organized by the application that generated them. What I DON'T want is a file manager. I want something like a project manager as the primary interface between the computer and my actual work. Is there such a thing?
but you will end up with a much higher performance system than you can purchase. I built a celeron 333 a few years ago that benchmarked significantly higher than any every "store-bought" full pentium system at the time. Remember, the big manufacturers like Dell and Gateway are getting volume discounts on generally low-end parts in order to produce the P4 systems you see selling for $599.
I'd suggest starting out by going to a site like arstechnica.com and looking over their guides. You need to make quite a few decisions regarding components before you even start looking at vendors. You need to pick a CPU, a motherboard, a video card, etc. etc...
One of the basic "proofs" of Wolfram's thesis seems to be that he can generate pictures from cellular automata rules that look like actual physical objects. Why is this so significant? What difference does it make whether a picture of a leaf is generated by a fractal algorithm, a camera lense or a cellular automata rule? Sensory characteristics are, for the most part, emergent properties that do not exist at even the cellular level, let alone the atomic or subatomic. So what is all the fuss about? Am I missing something here? Does anyone of any scientific standing actually think that fractals or cellular automata rules "explain" the universe?
What is the big deal? It's a file manager!!! When is someone actually going to come up with an interface for Linux that doesn't just make it look like a prettier version of Windows? I've had just about enough desktop icons and file managers. Is this it? Is this all there is? Is this the future of desktop computing--more of the same, but prettier?
But it does themes!!! OOooohhhh, I'm impressed now! I don't give a shit about file managers. I'm sick of having to track every file I create. Why can't the computer do that for me? Why do I have to give a name and location to every single document I create? Why can't the computer do that? Isn't it smart enough to see what I'm typing, tell what sort of document I'm creating, and act accordingly?
Here is my idea, and keep in mind, I'm not a programmer. Why not have the OS, or at least something very low level, actually be a database, but present the user with several different front-ends. For instance, when I want to do word processing, I launch a program that looks like Word, or Wordperfect, but is actually a database, with all of the attendant functionality. As I'm creating my document, the database is indexing it and figuring out what it is. When I'm done, it saves it for me. When I want it back, I type in a few search terms, or perhaps I get a menu of some sort, and I can re-open it, along with any other documents related to it, e.g., a spreadsheet. I could even have a microphone that I just speak into and ask for something, e.g., "show me the memo I was working on yesterday about the new operating system."
Does this make sense, or am I just full of it?
I do not understand the government's insistence on focussing on the Explorer vs. Netscape issue. This is trivial compared to what happened to Wordperfect. By bundling Office with virtually every new PC sold, MS basically put Corel under. When are they going to get the main point: having the code for the OS gives MS an unfair advantage.
Obviously virtual communities of some sort exist, and only a Doctoral candidate would deny the existence of something so obvious. Having been one myself, I've seen it happen first-hand.
The first step is to define your terms such that what you are denying doesn't exist by definition. Second, based on your definition, expound on what a "real" community is and show how the "alleged" ones don't measure up. Third, focus on who is excluded from participation, make them into a single group, and show how "unfair" this is. Fourth, isolate a large group with "evil intent" and show that they are in complete control.
This is bunko. Slashdot is a perfect example of a "virtual community." Obviously it isn't "real," so it won't meet the definition of a "real" community. That is why it is "virtual"!!
software not using the GPL, why doesn't RMS go back to coding himself? When was the last time he actually coded something--not counting farting around with emacs. What ever happened to the HURD kernel? As if we are ever likely to see that. Instead he bitches about people not referring to Linux as "GNU/Linux."
The guy has done a lot of good, but I'm sick of his whining. Get back to coding RMS!
What are these guys smoking? The only company on the internet making any money at all is Yahoo. The biggest on-line retailer--Amazon.com--hasn't made a dime, and is piling up losses in the hundreds of millions. And Helix Code is giving away their product!
Oh but wait. They have an idea for getting people to subscribe to a "service." Then they will be rolling in the dough. Riiiiiiight....
because these guys are going under before too much longer. They just lost their CFO--Harold Covert--who had only been with the company 4 months. He went to SGI (who is also in bad shape--their shares are at less than $5.)
RedHat stock is at $18, down from a high of $150 only 6 months ago. And here is a nice quote from their most recent quarterly report:
"We have incurred operating losses in five of our previous six fiscal years, including our most recent fiscal year ended February 29, 2000. We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, as we substantially increase our sales and marketing, research and development and administrative expenses. In addition, we are investing considerable resources in our web initiative and to expand our professional services offerings. As a result, we cannot be certain when or if we will achieve sustained profitability. Failure to become and remain profitable may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to raise capital and continue operations."
Don't get me wrong. I would love to see RedHat survive as a viable, publicly held, independent company. But unless they figure out some way to make some money, they are toast, version 7.0 notwithstanding.
The problems with this article are almost too ridiculous to have to mention.
1. Every single claim is unsubstantiated. Not a single name of a single reviewer or place of publication. If you are going to make a factual claim, at least have the good sense to cite some evidence.
2. No motivation. There is no motivation to get a free copy of something that cost $30 (or even free if you want to download it).
On the other hand, a free copy of Microsoft NT 2000 would at least provide some sort of motivation.
Re:while I'm not familiar with Behe's work...
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
I do think that two important pieces of the argument from design are being left out in your summary. The first is that objects that appear to be designed do imply some sort of designer. The second is whether that designer needs to be some sort of deity. The complexity of life does imply that there is some sort of design process at work. The next question is whether what we know of the design implies a design process of an intelligent being or not.
To your first point, it is of course true by definition that what appears to be "designed" implys a designer. But that doesn't get you anywhere; it is just a semantic point. The trick is to get past the semantic point and reach some consensus about what constitutes evidence for a designer. For one, why is complexity always cited as the preminent characteristic? A hallmark of good human design is simplicity.
As for your second point, I agree. Looking at a lot of nature, I'd have to say if god did it, then god is a very inconsistent designer. And the move from an "intelligent" designer to a "deity" is a bit of a leap. So what would count as sufficient criteria for requiring a deity as opposed to a merely intelligent designer?
What could possibly count as "complete evidence for the miraculous"? And even if there were such evidence? why would it be rational to posit a god who is totally unexplainable as the only explanation?
Behe's tired old argument from design
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 4
OK, I haven't read the book, but from the reviewer's mention of Behe, I'm assuming it appeals to his argument from irreducible complexity of biologicl systems. The gist of the argument is that a biological system that is sufficiently complex enough in Behe's sense cannot have evolved into its present state. Therefore, we have evidence for an intelligent designer. It is amazing that seemingly rational people can make a leap from something that science is (currently) unable to explain, to something that is unexplainable in principle, namely god, as the explanation. Positing god doesn't "explain" anything at all. It simply ends all discussion of how things happen by claiming that god did it. (And don't ask where god came from.) Reminds me of that old cartoon of the two mathematicians standing in front of a blackboard full of equations done by one of them. In the center of the board are the words "and then a miracle occured" and the mathematics continues on. The one mathematician is saying to the other, "I think you need to be a bit more explicit here."
Anyone remember the movie, and then the TV series, starring Andy Griffith? He played a salvage yard operator who built a rocket out of stuff he had salvaged. He launched it from his yard, and in the movie he went to the moon to collect all the stuff the NASA missions had left behind.
Seems to me a good test of Stallman's ideas would be to see a company like RedHat turn a profit. They posted better than expected losses for the last quarter. Their net loss for the quarter was $24.5 million, or $0.17 per share, but the adjusted loss came to $0.04, or $5.6 million--one cent ahead of analysts' expectations.
Slashdot Mirror
If the authorities have a proper search warrant, I don't see why he can't be compelled to give his encryption keys. It is no different than being compelled to provide the key to a locked desk. The location of the key is irrelevant, whether it be in his mind or on his keychain.
The last of the general interest genre.
The first time I drove down Franklin Avenue in Los Angeles and saw the sign in front of their building that says "Church Of Scientology Celebrity Centre International" I was pretty sure this wasn't really a religion.
If teleporting a human requires making a copy and destroying the original, then the obvious question is: is the copy still me? This raises the interesting question of what exactly constitutes personal identity. Here is a very entertaining and amusing read on the topic by Daniel Dennet, a first-rate philosopher and all-around funny guy.
I recall seeing the results of a recent survey in which people were asked how they would recognize when they were living in "the future." The overwhelming majority answered, "when we have flying cars." Is this getting us any closer? Does anyone else remember seeing this survey?
With all this talk of computer interfaces being called desktops, why doesn't someone come up with one that actually works like a real desktop?
On my real desktop I have various objects: a computer, pictures of my wife and kids, a printer, a telephone, a rolodex, various folders with documents for projects I'm working on, a cd holder, a file cabinet, a calendar, a clock, etc.
My computer "desktop" emulates some of this reasonably well. What it fails miserably at is how it keeps my projects organized. What I DON'T have on my real desktop are folders organized by the application that generated them. What I DON'T want is a file manager. I want something like a project manager as the primary interface between the computer and my actual work. Is there such a thing?
but you will end up with a much higher performance system than you can purchase. I built a celeron 333 a few years ago that benchmarked significantly higher than any every "store-bought" full pentium system at the time. Remember, the big manufacturers like Dell and Gateway are getting volume discounts on generally low-end parts in order to produce the P4 systems you see selling for $599.
I'd suggest starting out by going to a site like arstechnica.com and looking over their guides. You need to make quite a few decisions regarding components before you even start looking at vendors. You need to pick a CPU, a motherboard, a video card, etc. etc...
One of the basic "proofs" of Wolfram's thesis seems to be that he can generate pictures from cellular automata rules that look like actual physical objects. Why is this so significant? What difference does it make whether a picture of a leaf is generated by a fractal algorithm, a camera lense or a cellular automata rule? Sensory characteristics are, for the most part, emergent properties that do not exist at even the cellular level, let alone the atomic or subatomic. So what is all the fuss about? Am I missing something here? Does anyone of any scientific standing actually think that fractals or cellular automata rules "explain" the universe?
What is the big deal? It's a file manager!!! When is someone actually going to come up with an interface for Linux that doesn't just make it look like a prettier version of Windows? I've had just about enough desktop icons and file managers. Is this it? Is this all there is? Is this the future of desktop computing--more of the same, but prettier? But it does themes!!! OOooohhhh, I'm impressed now! I don't give a shit about file managers. I'm sick of having to track every file I create. Why can't the computer do that for me? Why do I have to give a name and location to every single document I create? Why can't the computer do that? Isn't it smart enough to see what I'm typing, tell what sort of document I'm creating, and act accordingly? Here is my idea, and keep in mind, I'm not a programmer. Why not have the OS, or at least something very low level, actually be a database, but present the user with several different front-ends. For instance, when I want to do word processing, I launch a program that looks like Word, or Wordperfect, but is actually a database, with all of the attendant functionality. As I'm creating my document, the database is indexing it and figuring out what it is. When I'm done, it saves it for me. When I want it back, I type in a few search terms, or perhaps I get a menu of some sort, and I can re-open it, along with any other documents related to it, e.g., a spreadsheet. I could even have a microphone that I just speak into and ask for something, e.g., "show me the memo I was working on yesterday about the new operating system." Does this make sense, or am I just full of it?
I do not understand the government's insistence on focussing on the Explorer vs. Netscape issue. This is trivial compared to what happened to Wordperfect. By bundling Office with virtually every new PC sold, MS basically put Corel under. When are they going to get the main point: having the code for the OS gives MS an unfair advantage.
The first step is to define your terms such that what you are denying doesn't exist by definition. Second, based on your definition, expound on what a "real" community is and show how the "alleged" ones don't measure up. Third, focus on who is excluded from participation, make them into a single group, and show how "unfair" this is. Fourth, isolate a large group with "evil intent" and show that they are in complete control.
This is bunko. Slashdot is a perfect example of a "virtual community." Obviously it isn't "real," so it won't meet the definition of a "real" community. That is why it is "virtual"!!
The guy has done a lot of good, but I'm sick of his whining. Get back to coding RMS!
Oh but wait. They have an idea for getting people to subscribe to a "service." Then they will be rolling in the dough. Riiiiiiight....
RedHat stock is at $18, down from a high of $150 only 6 months ago. And here is a nice quote from their most recent quarterly report:
"We have incurred operating losses in five of our previous six fiscal years, including our most recent fiscal year ended February 29, 2000. We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, as we substantially increase our sales and marketing, research and development and administrative expenses. In addition, we are investing considerable resources in our web initiative and to expand our professional services offerings. As a result, we cannot be certain when or if we will achieve sustained profitability. Failure to become and remain profitable may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to raise capital and continue operations."
Don't get me wrong. I would love to see RedHat survive as a viable, publicly held, independent company. But unless they figure out some way to make some money, they are toast, version 7.0 notwithstanding.
1. Every single claim is unsubstantiated. Not a single name of a single reviewer or place of publication. If you are going to make a factual claim, at least have the good sense to cite some evidence.
2. No motivation. There is no motivation to get a free copy of something that cost $30 (or even free if you want to download it).
On the other hand, a free copy of Microsoft NT 2000 would at least provide some sort of motivation.
I do think that two important pieces of the argument from design are being left out in your summary. The first is that objects that appear to be designed do imply some sort of designer. The second is whether that designer needs to be some sort of deity. The complexity of life does imply that there is some sort of design process at work. The next question is whether what we know of the design implies a design process of an intelligent being or not.
To your first point, it is of course true by definition that what appears to be "designed" implys a designer. But that doesn't get you anywhere; it is just a semantic point. The trick is to get past the semantic point and reach some consensus about what constitutes evidence for a designer. For one, why is complexity always cited as the preminent characteristic? A hallmark of good human design is simplicity.
As for your second point, I agree. Looking at a lot of nature, I'd have to say if god did it, then god is a very inconsistent designer. And the move from an "intelligent" designer to a "deity" is a bit of a leap. So what would count as sufficient criteria for requiring a deity as opposed to a merely intelligent designer?
What could possibly count as "complete evidence for the miraculous"? And even if there were such evidence? why would it be rational to posit a god who is totally unexplainable as the only explanation?
OK, I haven't read the book, but from the reviewer's mention of Behe, I'm assuming it appeals to his argument from irreducible complexity of biologicl systems. The gist of the argument is that a biological system that is sufficiently complex enough in Behe's sense cannot have evolved into its present state. Therefore, we have evidence for an intelligent designer. It is amazing that seemingly rational people can make a leap from something that science is (currently) unable to explain, to something that is unexplainable in principle, namely god, as the explanation. Positing god doesn't "explain" anything at all. It simply ends all discussion of how things happen by claiming that god did it. (And don't ask where god came from.) Reminds me of that old cartoon of the two mathematicians standing in front of a blackboard full of equations done by one of them. In the center of the board are the words "and then a miracle occured" and the mathematics continues on. The one mathematician is saying to the other, "I think you need to be a bit more explicit here."
Anyone remember the movie, and then the TV series, starring Andy Griffith? He played a salvage yard operator who built a rocket out of stuff he had salvaged. He launched it from his yard, and in the movie he went to the moon to collect all the stuff the NASA missions had left behind.
Seems to me a good test of Stallman's ideas would be to see a company like RedHat turn a profit. They posted better than expected losses for the last quarter. Their net loss for the quarter was $24.5 million, or $0.17 per share, but the adjusted loss came to $0.04, or $5.6 million--one cent ahead of analysts' expectations.
thinks about a breakup of Microsoft: http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/990329/2a.html