I stand corrected. Thanks for kindly pointing that out. Anyway, the point still stands that it wasn't released until after PHP. Sorry for the confusion with versions of ASP.
You conveniently omit "languages" -- really, glorified macro platforms -- like ASP and ColdFusion, which were a big if not bigger influence on PHP than Perl ever was. And ASP was... guess who? Microsoft.
Wait wait wait... Holy crap, is that ever off.
First, ColdFusion is Adobe territory.
Second, PHP was originally a set of scripts written in Perl, called "Personal Home Page Tools" (PHP Tools). That was released publicly in 1995, and I think it was released even before ColdFusion was. So, Perl directly influenced PHP.
ASP wasn't even released until 2002. That's even two years after PHP 4.
Where on earth did get those ideas? If anything, it goes the other way around.
But capitalism doesn't necessarily mean a complete free market and a completely free market won't solve consumer's problems. The US mobile phone market hasn't provided consumers with better options in fact it's pretty piss poor and yet it is the freest communication network in the US. Do you honestly think that companies will provide anything different with the internet more so when companies have already tried closed networks like AOL.
Mobile phone markets are NOT the "freest communication network in the US". Where on earth did you get that idea? First of all, you need some cash to buy out or license certain radio frequencies. Next, radio frequencies are not magical. They can only handle so much traffic. On the other hand, any landline based telecomm can bury cables. There's no physical restriction limiting them, whereas there is for mobile networks.
Secondly, I don't know if you've noticed, but while there's 5 major carriers on the national level, there's local competition in tons of markets (here, it's Cricket). There's also the option of prepaid phones. Really, there is quite a bit of diverse competition, but the reason you aren't seeing much more is for the reasons mentioned above.
You can't use the mobile networks as an example, because it's a severely limited resource. Nice try.
The argument is flawed because companies won't compete in any sort of way that benefits consumers. They'll keep prices high...
I don't know what world you live in, but if someone wants more customers, they'll try to offer customers a better deal. Either it'll be product quality or price, or both. In a free market, if this isn't done, they either lose immediately, or they'll lose eventually when someone sees a market opportunity and undercuts the crappy expensive competition. Customers choose in a free market.
Take for example Cox. That's our big ISP in my city, and the only competition was Qwest DSL. Well, as you can guess, there isn't much competition there because the locally contracted Cable Co. is able to provide MUCH more bandwidth. Qwest couldn't compete with that particular kind of bandwidth. However, the suburbs were not contracted in the same way; they could get licenses to bury fiber optics. So that's what they did. Suddenly, they were able to offer better bandwidth for lower (albeit, not much lower) prices.
Did Cox stay where they were at? No, they fattened their pipes... from 15mbps tops to a full 50mbps (Qwest was offering 20 at the time). Who wins? The consumer. Since then, both parties dropped prices. And that's how a free market works. Imagine what would happen 5 choices were allowed in the same market at the same time?
The ideal situation for consumers is a mix of the two.
Well I sure hope you don't mean our current mix of the two, because that's the status quo and it's not working, thus the debate over net neutrality.
He states "This is not the case with net neutrality because right now internet service providers are voluntarily complying with the standards net neutrality advocates seek to codify." but if that is true and they're happy to voluntarily run a neutral network then why does it matter if the government makes it required? They're only doing it because they've had to live with the threat of government intervention so actually they're not doing it voluntarily.
No, they are "voluntarily complying" not because of threat of government action (those fines are PENNIES), but because of the threat of consumer backlash. They're finding out now that consumer backlash won't necessarily change how much business they get, plus the profits they'd make from businesses paying for prioritized traffic would probably more than offset any losses from losing the few customers that actually have a choice. They aren't "happily" providing anything; they're looking for more money (and are in every right to do so). Businesses are AL
Some of us just want hot women and cool action scenes, even if they're over the top. Which is what Daniel Craig provided. Just too bad the damn things had so much ad placement, but even with the ad placement, I still consider it more enjoyable than when Pierce Brosnan was at the helm (how was that tub of lard supposed to be a super spy? c'mon...).
It's not about "matter" evolving into "complex organisms," it is about "simple organisms" evolving into "complex organisms." Evolution isn't concerned with how life arose, only how it changed after arising.
Good point, and I made too far of a leap there, but my point still stands.
Why would both parents need to acquire a trait at the same time? Either parent could pass on the trait, and beneficial traits would tend to spread throughout the population. More complex traits don't need to arise all at once, so a beneficial trait could arise in a small segment of the population and then gradually spread as those possessing the trait out-competed those without it. This is really basic evolutionary theory.
Not necessarily for interspecies evolution. Example: another pair of chromosomes develop, which renders the mutated organism to most likely not be able to reproduce with organisms without the extra pair of chromosomes. This is still a change on the DNA level. I say "both parents" thinking of examples like these in a species like us.
I have no idea what this means. "Organize" in what sense? Ironically, the word "organize" comes from "organs," which were evolved by... nature! The primary defining characteristic of all life is organizing. The most basic function of a cell is separating the interior from the exterior; when a cell ceases to segregate internal from external, it is no longer alive. Life is, literally, the organization of simpler compounds into organs, cells, and populations.
Meaning things aren't naturally self-organizing. Things left on their own tend towards a chaotic state. Even "stable" organic systems, like the basic cell, WILL grow chaotic and destabilize over time. I'm not arguing with what you said here, just clarifying what I meant.
What is a "VERY valid question?" What question are you raising?
The question of the exact process of evolution that got us to where we are now. Like I said, all I'm saying is a lot of people think we know exactly what happened. We don't. We're still studying it, and there's evidence that suggests there's more to it than just simple natural selection. That's all, questioning the status quo theory (in this case more of a mainstream theory than perhaps what's actually being researched), which is how proper science is done.
That's why we are still researching it. We know the general mechanism (inherited genetic differences), but there are a ton of specifics left to figure out. The impressive thing about it is that a random number generator and a fitness function will give rise to amazingly complex results (either natural organisms or simulations). None of this requires any kind of mysterious, magical "intelligent designer" guiding the process. I may be overly cynical, but suggesting that evolution does have some "guiding hand" is a way to weasel ID nonsense into the conversation.
Precisely. I never suggested a "guiding hand" was involved; I'm just saying there's a point to saying things are simply too complex to have evolved to their current state, given our current knowledge and understanding of the evolutionary process. Just being empathetic and seeing why they (the Creationists, IDers) would say that before pointing the dumb stick everywhere, that is all. As you said, it's crazy complex, and given the time frame all this occurs in, it's next to impossible to observe except with computer models, but even then there's a very structured order that is being dealt with. Nature isn't as simple as a set of numbers with a fitness function, especially when you're talking about going beyond simple forms of life.
It may not all be "magical" to you, but if you aren't impressed with the end result, I don't even know how to hold a conversation with you;)
It isn't a refusal to do battle. It's contracted by cities so that only MegaCompany A can provide certain kinds of bandwidth in the area.
And I'm sorry, but choosing between company B's 1.5mbps DSL (because that's all they can do on their line and it isn't legal to install anything else) or MegaCompany A's city-contracted 15mbps for the same price... isn't competition. It's hampered. It's messed with. It's not capitalism.
That doesn't even make sense considering GP said he never played it. If anything, by not playing it, it signifies that it's more likely GP has achieved far more tail than otherwise.
I'd like to add my own personal experience from a few observations of other people that might refute this.
Based on my personal experience, I'd say that genetically, you are predispositioned to certain basic personality traits. It seems pretty obvious given certain brain formation and chemistry. Both can be altered, and both alterations have been observed to result in major personality changes, but that's not to say you can't develop certain personality traits based on experience.
Say someone as a child is very outgoing, very confident, and very charismatic. They probably do very well with people when they start school and soon acquire many friends. This only boosts their confidence, and probably enhances these other personality traits.
Now, that someone is placed in another school. There happens to be a status quo there, where some jackass bully likes to try to break down any new kid that comes in. It happens to be effective with other kids no matter what the victim may be like. Suddenly, all confidence in lost. The kid becomes a severe introvert, becomes self-conscious, and not a couple years later is very anxious in social situations whereas not long before, the kid would have thrived.
Let's be honest. Kids can be extremely cruel, and this can change someone's personality to the extreme.
I wouldn't necessarily say that it's in this kid's nature to be the self-conscious introvert. From what I've learned, it seems that the impulse is to be confident and outgoing, but these impulses are suppressed based on past experiences. Learned behavior, if you will (get noticed, negative feedback. stay hidden, less negative feedback).
Here's the interesting part. A few years later, that kid gets into an accident and loses most memories, almost like starting from scratch memory-wise. Suddenly, the kid is confident, outgoing, and charismatic once again.
Evolution does really work. Our bodies evolved to fight off a hell of a lot more than we currently do in modern countries. It's this lack of an enemy that causes our bodies to go into overcharge and look for an enemy, thus the huge rise in autoimmune diseases.
Look at the rate of autoimmune diseases in 3rd world countries or anywhere where everything isn't so god damn sterile. I guarantee that you will not find the same rate, not even close.
We just evolved as a civilization way faster than our bodies adapted. And since our medicine is so advanced, the whole concept of natural selection doesn't really work any more. Sick people still breed just as well as the healthy people lately, even with their disorders and diseases and other traits that wouldn't make it in a natural selection process.
While this demonstrates basic concepts of evolution, it is still a far cry from demonstrated evolution of matter into super complex biological organisms. Given that, in the case of our species, quite a number of steps would have required that both parents acquired the exact same mutation at the exact same time that gave them some kind of key evolutionary advantage that helped them survive longer/better than people without it, and also considering the fact that there's not exactly a tendency in nature to organize (chances are worse than just picking the right color out of the hat), I would say that it's a VERY valid question to raise about evolution, at least our own evolution.
Not to say that there's intelligence behind evolution, but that perhaps there's something more to it than we're seeing or thinking of. It's best not to think we know exactly how it all happened.
Read my whole post. I didn't say it wouldn't open doors, I just said it doesn't roll out the red carpet and march you right up to the top without any effort whatsoever. That's ridiculous.
"It definitely doesn't hurt, but you have to do some things on your own if you want to accomplish anything of significance. "
Make no mistake, the ending of slavery move was profit and power motivated, not out of goodness of heart or good ethics. Besides, how in the hell is that relevant today? You think things would've remained exactly the same or what?
C'mon... being born into a rich family or even having daddy as president doesn't automatically get you into a seat of power. It definitely doesn't hurt, but you have to do some things on your own if you want to accomplish anything of significance.
I'd agree with GP, he can't be a complete idiot. He managed to become leader of a super power after all. Twice.
Even if I had a president as a father, I don't think I could accomplish that myself. So, I guess, give credit where credit is due (and blame where blame is due).
1) You can lose the cops
2) Cops need to sleep
3) There's not a detailed electronic record of every movement
4) Not cost effective
5) Cops hate it
It's quite a bit different. Not to mention that cops tailing your car doesn't fall under the category of "electronic surveillance", and so it isn't part of the slippery slope.
Nobody is coming into your home and forcing you to submit to an airport security screening. You have the option not to fly. Even if you chose to fly, you do have the option not to pass through full body scanners and the right to refuse strip searches.
Sick of this bullshit argument.
First of all, if you don't submit to a strip search, you get groped by a thug. Reeeeal fine choice there.
Second, they don't force you to drive either. They don't force you to work. They don't force you to live where you do. Does that give them to right to execute invasive searches on your car, work, or home for no reason whatsoever? No, it does not. Just because you technically choose to do it means absolute squat.
Slashdot Mirror
I stand corrected. Thanks for kindly pointing that out. Anyway, the point still stands that it wasn't released until after PHP. Sorry for the confusion with versions of ASP.
Fine, I was talking about ASP.Net. ASP was still released after the first version of PHP, and so the point still stands.
No need to get so insulting.
You conveniently omit "languages" -- really, glorified macro platforms -- like ASP and ColdFusion, which were a big if not bigger influence on PHP than Perl ever was. And ASP was ... guess who? Microsoft.
Wait wait wait... Holy crap, is that ever off.
First, ColdFusion is Adobe territory.
Second, PHP was originally a set of scripts written in Perl, called "Personal Home Page Tools" (PHP Tools). That was released publicly in 1995, and I think it was released even before ColdFusion was. So, Perl directly influenced PHP.
ASP wasn't even released until 2002. That's even two years after PHP 4.
Where on earth did get those ideas? If anything, it goes the other way around.
That's "Controlled by Oracle", which is far worse than "Controlled by Sun", at least for viability.
Well, it's for that very reason (first part of your statement) that he's doing so well. Have you seen those ratings for those programs? It's unreal!
But capitalism doesn't necessarily mean a complete free market and a completely free market won't solve consumer's problems. The US mobile phone market hasn't provided consumers with better options in fact it's pretty piss poor and yet it is the freest communication network in the US. Do you honestly think that companies will provide anything different with the internet more so when companies have already tried closed networks like AOL.
Mobile phone markets are NOT the "freest communication network in the US". Where on earth did you get that idea? First of all, you need some cash to buy out or license certain radio frequencies. Next, radio frequencies are not magical. They can only handle so much traffic. On the other hand, any landline based telecomm can bury cables. There's no physical restriction limiting them, whereas there is for mobile networks.
Secondly, I don't know if you've noticed, but while there's 5 major carriers on the national level, there's local competition in tons of markets (here, it's Cricket). There's also the option of prepaid phones. Really, there is quite a bit of diverse competition, but the reason you aren't seeing much more is for the reasons mentioned above.
You can't use the mobile networks as an example, because it's a severely limited resource. Nice try.
The argument is flawed because companies won't compete in any sort of way that benefits consumers. They'll keep prices high...
I don't know what world you live in, but if someone wants more customers, they'll try to offer customers a better deal. Either it'll be product quality or price, or both. In a free market, if this isn't done, they either lose immediately, or they'll lose eventually when someone sees a market opportunity and undercuts the crappy expensive competition. Customers choose in a free market.
Take for example Cox. That's our big ISP in my city, and the only competition was Qwest DSL. Well, as you can guess, there isn't much competition there because the locally contracted Cable Co. is able to provide MUCH more bandwidth. Qwest couldn't compete with that particular kind of bandwidth. However, the suburbs were not contracted in the same way; they could get licenses to bury fiber optics. So that's what they did. Suddenly, they were able to offer better bandwidth for lower (albeit, not much lower) prices.
Did Cox stay where they were at? No, they fattened their pipes... from 15mbps tops to a full 50mbps (Qwest was offering 20 at the time). Who wins? The consumer. Since then, both parties dropped prices. And that's how a free market works. Imagine what would happen 5 choices were allowed in the same market at the same time?
The ideal situation for consumers is a mix of the two.
Well I sure hope you don't mean our current mix of the two, because that's the status quo and it's not working, thus the debate over net neutrality.
He states "This is not the case with net neutrality because right now internet service providers are voluntarily complying with the standards net neutrality advocates seek to codify." but if that is true and they're happy to voluntarily run a neutral network then why does it matter if the government makes it required? They're only doing it because they've had to live with the threat of government intervention so actually they're not doing it voluntarily.
No, they are "voluntarily complying" not because of threat of government action (those fines are PENNIES), but because of the threat of consumer backlash. They're finding out now that consumer backlash won't necessarily change how much business they get, plus the profits they'd make from businesses paying for prioritized traffic would probably more than offset any losses from losing the few customers that actually have a choice. They aren't "happily" providing anything; they're looking for more money (and are in every right to do so). Businesses are AL
Who's the best at cheating?
Now cheating pays two-fold.
Some of us just want hot women and cool action scenes, even if they're over the top. Which is what Daniel Craig provided. Just too bad the damn things had so much ad placement, but even with the ad placement, I still consider it more enjoyable than when Pierce Brosnan was at the helm (how was that tub of lard supposed to be a super spy? c'mon...).
It's not about "matter" evolving into "complex organisms," it is about "simple organisms" evolving into "complex organisms." Evolution isn't concerned with how life arose, only how it changed after arising.
Good point, and I made too far of a leap there, but my point still stands.
Why would both parents need to acquire a trait at the same time? Either parent could pass on the trait, and beneficial traits would tend to spread throughout the population. More complex traits don't need to arise all at once, so a beneficial trait could arise in a small segment of the population and then gradually spread as those possessing the trait out-competed those without it. This is really basic evolutionary theory.
Not necessarily for interspecies evolution. Example: another pair of chromosomes develop, which renders the mutated organism to most likely not be able to reproduce with organisms without the extra pair of chromosomes. This is still a change on the DNA level. I say "both parents" thinking of examples like these in a species like us.
I have no idea what this means. "Organize" in what sense? Ironically, the word "organize" comes from "organs," which were evolved by... nature! The primary defining characteristic of all life is organizing. The most basic function of a cell is separating the interior from the exterior; when a cell ceases to segregate internal from external, it is no longer alive. Life is, literally, the organization of simpler compounds into organs, cells, and populations.
Meaning things aren't naturally self-organizing. Things left on their own tend towards a chaotic state. Even "stable" organic systems, like the basic cell, WILL grow chaotic and destabilize over time. I'm not arguing with what you said here, just clarifying what I meant.
What is a "VERY valid question?" What question are you raising?
The question of the exact process of evolution that got us to where we are now. Like I said, all I'm saying is a lot of people think we know exactly what happened. We don't. We're still studying it, and there's evidence that suggests there's more to it than just simple natural selection. That's all, questioning the status quo theory (in this case more of a mainstream theory than perhaps what's actually being researched), which is how proper science is done.
That's why we are still researching it. We know the general mechanism (inherited genetic differences), but there are a ton of specifics left to figure out. The impressive thing about it is that a random number generator and a fitness function will give rise to amazingly complex results (either natural organisms or simulations). None of this requires any kind of mysterious, magical "intelligent designer" guiding the process. I may be overly cynical, but suggesting that evolution does have some "guiding hand" is a way to weasel ID nonsense into the conversation.
Precisely. I never suggested a "guiding hand" was involved; I'm just saying there's a point to saying things are simply too complex to have evolved to their current state, given our current knowledge and understanding of the evolutionary process. Just being empathetic and seeing why they (the Creationists, IDers) would say that before pointing the dumb stick everywhere, that is all. As you said, it's crazy complex, and given the time frame all this occurs in, it's next to impossible to observe except with computer models, but even then there's a very structured order that is being dealt with. Nature isn't as simple as a set of numbers with a fitness function, especially when you're talking about going beyond simple forms of life.
;)
It may not all be "magical" to you, but if you aren't impressed with the end result, I don't even know how to hold a conversation with you
It isn't a refusal to do battle. It's contracted by cities so that only MegaCompany A can provide certain kinds of bandwidth in the area.
And I'm sorry, but choosing between company B's 1.5mbps DSL (because that's all they can do on their line and it isn't legal to install anything else) or MegaCompany A's city-contracted 15mbps for the same price... isn't competition. It's hampered. It's messed with. It's not capitalism.
Well, it's been shown that Apple users tend to be bigger spenders...
Makes for easier sorting too without having to parse the string.
That doesn't even make sense considering GP said he never played it. If anything, by not playing it, it signifies that it's more likely GP has achieved far more tail than otherwise.
I'd like to add my own personal experience from a few observations of other people that might refute this.
Based on my personal experience, I'd say that genetically, you are predispositioned to certain basic personality traits. It seems pretty obvious given certain brain formation and chemistry. Both can be altered, and both alterations have been observed to result in major personality changes, but that's not to say you can't develop certain personality traits based on experience.
Say someone as a child is very outgoing, very confident, and very charismatic. They probably do very well with people when they start school and soon acquire many friends. This only boosts their confidence, and probably enhances these other personality traits.
Now, that someone is placed in another school. There happens to be a status quo there, where some jackass bully likes to try to break down any new kid that comes in. It happens to be effective with other kids no matter what the victim may be like. Suddenly, all confidence in lost. The kid becomes a severe introvert, becomes self-conscious, and not a couple years later is very anxious in social situations whereas not long before, the kid would have thrived.
Let's be honest. Kids can be extremely cruel, and this can change someone's personality to the extreme.
I wouldn't necessarily say that it's in this kid's nature to be the self-conscious introvert. From what I've learned, it seems that the impulse is to be confident and outgoing, but these impulses are suppressed based on past experiences. Learned behavior, if you will (get noticed, negative feedback. stay hidden, less negative feedback).
Here's the interesting part. A few years later, that kid gets into an accident and loses most memories, almost like starting from scratch memory-wise. Suddenly, the kid is confident, outgoing, and charismatic once again.
Needless to say, I call bullshit on this study.
Hollywood accounting. You seen those numbers? They somehow get it on paper that they get a loss on major films that do really well in the box office.
Good accountants truly are undervalued.
Evolution does really work. Our bodies evolved to fight off a hell of a lot more than we currently do in modern countries. It's this lack of an enemy that causes our bodies to go into overcharge and look for an enemy, thus the huge rise in autoimmune diseases.
Look at the rate of autoimmune diseases in 3rd world countries or anywhere where everything isn't so god damn sterile. I guarantee that you will not find the same rate, not even close.
We just evolved as a civilization way faster than our bodies adapted. And since our medicine is so advanced, the whole concept of natural selection doesn't really work any more. Sick people still breed just as well as the healthy people lately, even with their disorders and diseases and other traits that wouldn't make it in a natural selection process.
While this demonstrates basic concepts of evolution, it is still a far cry from demonstrated evolution of matter into super complex biological organisms. Given that, in the case of our species, quite a number of steps would have required that both parents acquired the exact same mutation at the exact same time that gave them some kind of key evolutionary advantage that helped them survive longer/better than people without it, and also considering the fact that there's not exactly a tendency in nature to organize (chances are worse than just picking the right color out of the hat), I would say that it's a VERY valid question to raise about evolution, at least our own evolution.
Not to say that there's intelligence behind evolution, but that perhaps there's something more to it than we're seeing or thinking of. It's best not to think we know exactly how it all happened.
Considering that the writer of this AI was simply copying mother nature, I would conclude that it has already been demonstrated.
Read my whole post. I didn't say it wouldn't open doors, I just said it doesn't roll out the red carpet and march you right up to the top without any effort whatsoever. That's ridiculous.
"It definitely doesn't hurt, but you have to do some things on your own if you want to accomplish anything of significance. "
Depends how you define "feed" or "meat".
Make no mistake, the ending of slavery move was profit and power motivated, not out of goodness of heart or good ethics. Besides, how in the hell is that relevant today? You think things would've remained exactly the same or what?
So.... Chelsea Clinton 2040?
C'mon... being born into a rich family or even having daddy as president doesn't automatically get you into a seat of power. It definitely doesn't hurt, but you have to do some things on your own if you want to accomplish anything of significance.
I'd agree with GP, he can't be a complete idiot. He managed to become leader of a super power after all. Twice.
Even if I had a president as a father, I don't think I could accomplish that myself. So, I guess, give credit where credit is due (and blame where blame is due).
1) You can lose the cops
2) Cops need to sleep
3) There's not a detailed electronic record of every movement
4) Not cost effective
5) Cops hate it
It's quite a bit different. Not to mention that cops tailing your car doesn't fall under the category of "electronic surveillance", and so it isn't part of the slippery slope.
Which makes it unreliable.
For all they know from a few jackass friends, they'd find someone known as "Captain Beeffart".
Nobody is coming into your home and forcing you to submit to an airport security screening. You have the option not to fly. Even if you chose to fly, you do have the option not to pass through full body scanners and the right to refuse strip searches.
Sick of this bullshit argument.
First of all, if you don't submit to a strip search, you get groped by a thug. Reeeeal fine choice there.
Second, they don't force you to drive either. They don't force you to work. They don't force you to live where you do. Does that give them to right to execute invasive searches on your car, work, or home for no reason whatsoever? No, it does not. Just because you technically choose to do it means absolute squat.
Don't be so ridiculous.