Is anyone else seeing the Streisand effect here? Seems like Nato has just done a ton to help legitimize Anonymous and help with their recruiting and organizing efforts?
I'm not going to get into value judgments about Nato v. Anon in terms of right/wrong, but isn't Nato going about this wrong?
Keep smoking it. Foxconn employees don't have to jump out of windows to make iPads. Last I checked, the only way to eat a hamburger is for someone to kill a cow.
Aren't BSD and Apache 2 both incompatible (one-way) with GPL 2? So you can take BSD or A2 code and use them in GPL 2 codebases, but then they become GPL 2 licensed, but you can't take GPL 2 code and use it in either a BSD or A2 codebase at all?
But people who eat hamburgers aren't going significantly out of their way to kill animals? Seems real similar to me, except he's going out of his way to kill the animals personally. You eat a burger instead of the fries, you've pretty much gone out of your way to kill a cow.
Yeah - maybe him. I read about it in New Scientist a while back, which admittedly has a fairly light filter on crack pots (or people outside their field anyway). But the article made it sound like a few people were thinking about this, not just one. Anyway - thanks for the reference, it had been a while since I read about it.
Trying to make me feel old? No, the Atari I had didn't have a red button for reset. The whole system was in a (now retro-fashionably back in style) brown palette:
You can see in the upper right corner the reset button, and the vertical plastic fin in front of it that protected it from accidental key press (though not generally from toddlers reaching up from the side!)
This may sound dumb (I don't even know enough to know that), but do we know if the electron actually has a physical structure at all? Doesn't string theory (whatever that is) suggest that electrons are just elements of strings surfaced into 3-d from some n-d space? If so, what does round even mean? I'm really asking all these questions, but not sure if any experts will want to bother to provide answers or links to answers. Thanks.
There has been some interesting, speculative theoretical physics work that (as best I can tell) says that "if it is possible to simulate a physical universe in a machine, then we are almost certainly living within a simulation." Logic for that is roughly along the lines of your story above, but a little more rigorous.
Generally speaking - at least peer-reviewed journals - when you propose a theory, you also provide a mechanism or some interpretative framework. Scientists don't (generally) just propose an idea without any formalism to back it up (such as a model or process). Penrose's assertions of consciousness don't have any noticeable disprovable aspects.
As a scientific researcher, if I want to say that the properties of consciousness depend on quantum physics, the usual expectation is that I'll provide a mechanism to explain the dependency, and that mechanism or explanation will have some disprovable characteristics.
Of course Penrose made his assertion in a popular science book (Emperor's New Mind) not a peer reviewed forum, so his speculation went further afield. And b/c he's scientist with a well established career, he gets more lee way than your average post doc (like it or not). And the original citation was to discovery.com -- so you get what you pay for.
Exactly the same thing happened to me - and I went back to H&D as well! Funny.
I think he makes this argument on the bet that it'll be proven true later by someone smarter, but b/c he staked his (totally unsupported) claim now, he'll get all the credit for being the "true father" of the theory of consciousness.
Seems like a reasonable guess to say that consciousness depends on quantum behaviors, but only at the level of rigor of two guys in a bar over a beer.. But b/c this guy has a big reputation in other areas, he can leverage it for a big win later maybe.
A few biologists I've read and been taught by posit that in fact it is perturbations in the environment that drive a lot of the fitness selection and evolution we see in the record. So neanderthals might have been equally competitive until a change in environment which sapiens were more able to exploit as-is or more quickly evolved to take advantage of (changes such as expansion to new locations, change in climate, etc). Not saying you're "wrong" just wanted to add that nuance to the discussion.
Yeah - I was just eying my T410 and it's matte. I turned it to face the window (where the sun happens to blasting in right now) and I can read the screen fine, disproving in the above mentioned thesis that "all matte screens wash out in direct sun."
I just checked T43 and it's also matte and shows up ok in the sun (not as nice, maybe related to being an LCD instead of an LED screen?)
Same probs as MS Office, I'd wager. The desire to drive new sales through new corporate corner case features that no users really want, drives huge security architecture issues into the product that manifest as endless bugs like this. Smart engineers spend all their time patching b/c they are not consulted on the big design issues which create these problems. Security, as usual, is an after thought.
The fact is, Comcast didn't need to buy her vote they were getting it for free. She was not the swing vote on this issue by a long margin. Comcast had her in the bag without resorting to anything resembling bribery.
I'm pretty sure while this looks like payola (and is offensive), that this deal is being done b/c she'll make a good lobbyist, not b/c of something she did for Comcast while at FCC. Until recently I worked at FCC and we all knew which way the wind blew for this lady - no large corps needed to resort to anything as banal as quid pro quo to get her vote.
Comcast wants her because she used to be a commissioner and has a lot of contacts and power in DC. Not because of what she did per se while a commissioner in exchange for a deal. Only sloppy/ignorant politicians play out corruption in such a direct and obvious fashion.
It *is* like this for the executive branch government right now.. This lady worked at a congressional commission, not for the president and so, afaik, wasn't obligated to sign such an ethics pledge.
Not true for Executive branch political appointees (of which I am one). We all had to sign an "ethics pledge" which prohibits this revolving door for two years after our appointment, if we were a lobbyist beforehand. And all appointees can't deal with former employers at all for the first two years of their appointment, which is very annoying but if it helps with corruption it's worth it.
Problem is, this lady worked at FCC which is a Congressional commission and therefore not subject to the Obama ethics pledge, afaik.
Slashdot Mirror
Is anyone else seeing the Streisand effect here? Seems like Nato has just done a ton to help legitimize Anonymous and help with their recruiting and organizing efforts?
I'm not going to get into value judgments about Nato v. Anon in terms of right/wrong, but isn't Nato going about this wrong?
I thought I was the only one!
Keep smoking it. Foxconn employees don't have to jump out of windows to make iPads. Last I checked, the only way to eat a hamburger is for someone to kill a cow.
Aren't BSD and Apache 2 both incompatible (one-way) with GPL 2? So you can take BSD or A2 code and use them in GPL 2 codebases, but then they become GPL 2 licensed, but you can't take GPL 2 code and use it in either a BSD or A2 codebase at all?
2 seconds on google images: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/amelias-summer-job-finding-part-of-the-universe-20110526-1f6h5.html
But people who eat hamburgers aren't going significantly out of their way to kill animals? Seems real similar to me, except he's going out of his way to kill the animals personally. You eat a burger instead of the fries, you've pretty much gone out of your way to kill a cow.
Did you intend to introduce the words "eat" and "goatse" into my mind simultaneously? No thanks to you, either way. Brrrrghgh.
Yeah - maybe him. I read about it in New Scientist a while back, which admittedly has a fairly light filter on crack pots (or people outside their field anyway). But the article made it sound like a few people were thinking about this, not just one. Anyway - thanks for the reference, it had been a while since I read about it.
:)
Trying to make me feel old? No, the Atari I had didn't have a red button for reset. The whole system was in a (now retro-fashionably back in style) brown palette:
http://www.vintage-computer.com/atari_800.shtml
You can see in the upper right corner the reset button, and the vertical plastic fin in front of it that protected it from accidental key press (though not generally from toddlers reaching up from the side!)
This may sound dumb (I don't even know enough to know that), but do we know if the electron actually has a physical structure at all? Doesn't string theory (whatever that is) suggest that electrons are just elements of strings surfaced into 3-d from some n-d space? If so, what does round even mean? I'm really asking all these questions, but not sure if any experts will want to bother to provide answers or links to answers. Thanks.
There has been some interesting, speculative theoretical physics work that (as best I can tell) says that "if it is possible to simulate a physical universe in a machine, then we are almost certainly living within a simulation." Logic for that is roughly along the lines of your story above, but a little more rigorous.
Generally speaking - at least peer-reviewed journals - when you propose a theory, you also provide a mechanism or some interpretative framework. Scientists don't (generally) just propose an idea without any formalism to back it up (such as a model or process). Penrose's assertions of consciousness don't have any noticeable disprovable aspects.
As a scientific researcher, if I want to say that the properties of consciousness depend on quantum physics, the usual expectation is that I'll provide a mechanism to explain the dependency, and that mechanism or explanation will have some disprovable characteristics.
Of course Penrose made his assertion in a popular science book (Emperor's New Mind) not a peer reviewed forum, so his speculation went further afield. And b/c he's scientist with a well established career, he gets more lee way than your average post doc (like it or not). And the original citation was to discovery.com -- so you get what you pay for.
Exactly the same thing happened to me - and I went back to H&D as well! Funny.
I think he makes this argument on the bet that it'll be proven true later by someone smarter, but b/c he staked his (totally unsupported) claim now, he'll get all the credit for being the "true father" of the theory of consciousness.
Seems like a reasonable guess to say that consciousness depends on quantum behaviors, but only at the level of rigor of two guys in a bar over a beer.. But b/c this guy has a big reputation in other areas, he can leverage it for a big win later maybe.
A few biologists I've read and been taught by posit that in fact it is perturbations in the environment that drive a lot of the fitness selection and evolution we see in the record. So neanderthals might have been equally competitive until a change in environment which sapiens were more able to exploit as-is or more quickly evolved to take advantage of (changes such as expansion to new locations, change in climate, etc). Not saying you're "wrong" just wanted to add that nuance to the discussion.
Readability plugin for Firefox (and the original on Mac) makes this pretty manageable for web content.
Atari 800 had this button too, but they sensibly walled it off with little vertical plastic fins to make it harder to fat finger.
Wow, I've become a grey beard.
Yeah - I was just eying my T410 and it's matte. I turned it to face the window (where the sun happens to blasting in right now) and I can read the screen fine, disproving in the above mentioned thesis that "all matte screens wash out in direct sun."
I just checked T43 and it's also matte and shows up ok in the sun (not as nice, maybe related to being an LCD instead of an LED screen?)
Yeah - the old saying is "it's not who you know, but who knows you." That's the basic principle behind the value of a private education..
I found out that what I said is not true: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/
These commissioners did sign the ethics pledge which means she cannot lobby directly to many political people in DC.
I found out that what I said is not true: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/
These commissioners did sign the ethics pledge which means she cannot lobby directly to many political people in DC.
I found out that what I said is not true: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/
These commissioners did sign the ethics pledge which means she cannot lobby directly to many political people in DC.
Same probs as MS Office, I'd wager. The desire to drive new sales through new corporate corner case features that no users really want, drives huge security architecture issues into the product that manifest as endless bugs like this. Smart engineers spend all their time patching b/c they are not consulted on the big design issues which create these problems. Security, as usual, is an after thought.
The fact is, Comcast didn't need to buy her vote they were getting it for free. She was not the swing vote on this issue by a long margin. Comcast had her in the bag without resorting to anything resembling bribery.
I'm pretty sure while this looks like payola (and is offensive), that this deal is being done b/c she'll make a good lobbyist, not b/c of something she did for Comcast while at FCC. Until recently I worked at FCC and we all knew which way the wind blew for this lady - no large corps needed to resort to anything as banal as quid pro quo to get her vote.
Comcast wants her because she used to be a commissioner and has a lot of contacts and power in DC. Not because of what she did per se while a commissioner in exchange for a deal. Only sloppy/ignorant politicians play out corruption in such a direct and obvious fashion.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ethics-commitments-executive-branch-personnel
It *is* like this for the executive branch government right now.. This lady worked at a congressional commission, not for the president and so, afaik, wasn't obligated to sign such an ethics pledge.
Not true for Executive branch political appointees (of which I am one). We all had to sign an "ethics pledge" which prohibits this revolving door for two years after our appointment, if we were a lobbyist beforehand. And all appointees can't deal with former employers at all for the first two years of their appointment, which is very annoying but if it helps with corruption it's worth it.
Problem is, this lady worked at FCC which is a Congressional commission and therefore not subject to the Obama ethics pledge, afaik.
Pledge we all signed here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ethics-commitments-executive-branch-personnel