I felf very sorry for the young teenagers that came with their church group.
I was one of those teenagers. Not in the debate you are describing, but one held at Colorado State University back around 1980. The debate was very useful in that I came away from it suitably impressed by the clear victory of the biology professor who was debating the creationist Duane Gish.
Before the debate, I thought it would be interesting to see why someone would believe in creation. Afterwards I was a bit depressed. I had no idea how far a person would go to decieve themself and perpetuate a lie.
After the debate that I attended, I began reading outside of the narrow list of 'scientists' my church and parochial school presented me with. It didn't take me long to learn the difference between evidence and belief.
I don't know what can be learned from this...
I think it proves very well the point John Stuart Mill made in On Liberty: any idea should be debated. If it's not true, it will be exposed; if it is, it will be strengthened.
Ati All-Wonder-Radeon beats their video specs including time shifting.
Pricewatch prices starting at $145 for oem.
Audio:
Midiman Audiophile 2496.
J and R price == $169
The rest is just a basic Celeron box. Admittedly, $750 might be pushing it a little with the high end audio, but at least with this box you could upgrade individual components.
Oh? You don't have any mp3s/oggs that don't belong to you on your hard drive then? And you haven't allowed anyone else to log onto your school/work network because their account wasn't working right? No speeding tickets lately either?
For that matter, your number 6 might just get you sent for spreading hatred and advocating the violent deaths of members of a group based soley upon their opinions as to the relative worth of animals to humans.
Smaller die == less heat?
on
CPU Wars
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ok, I admit it. I'm confused. I thought a smaller die size increased heat. Less surface area to radiate from.
Gotta love the last line:
Next year looks like the best time ever to buy a new performance PC.
Next year is always the best time to buy a new PC.
They're interconnects. And, no, that's not the difference between "bar and grill" and "fine food and spirits" (price and fancy clothes). You really can tell the difference in the sound. Plus, the cables are guaranteed for life. You'll never need to buy another cable. Doesn't matter what happens, they'll fix or replace them.
these are just three of the makers. There's several more companies who's sole reason for existing is making audio/video interconnects and speaker cabling. Heck, even eBay has a category for interconnects - interconnects.
The real question is: do I really need $100 audio cables? Not really with my current equipment. However, if I buy a little better quality now, when I upgrade my amp and pre, I'll already have the right cabling.
For all of you hackers who think I'm crazy for spending that kind of money on cables, just think of all the money you spend on your bleeding edge, early adopter hardware. We all have our hobbies.
I have to agree that the variable bit rate sounds better than the constant. However, through my equipment, mp3s have a distinct lower quality than cds. There is a noticable improvement when they are burned to audio though, so it is not a lack in the mp3 format, just in my mp3 playing hardware. I have a very difficult time telling the difference between a song from a pressed cd and one that I have ripped, encoded and then burned back to cd audio format.
I have a Rotel amp and pre. My source is a Harman KardonFL8550 cd changer. My speakers are JBL S38 "bookshelf" speakers (they're bookshelf only if you have a BIG bookshelf.)
My soundblaster live value card can't compete with the FL8550's dual 20 bit Burr-Brown digital to analog converters. My next equipment purchase is going to be an OnkyoSE-U55 USB sound processor. Hopefully, that should let me use mp3s for more than casual listening.
One last thing: if you think computer addictions can be expensive, just try getting hooked on audiophile quality hardware! The interconnects I'm going to buy are over a $100 each for the bottom end of the line. But you can hear the difference.
Re:Why is a civilian spouting off about war?
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
For the first time in my personal experience of reading/. Katz has finally discovered a subject in which he is willing to admit he's not an expert. And how do the typical/. nitwits react? They flame him anyway. Example is the over-moderated parent of this post:
Why is a civilian spouting off about war? Seriously, Jon, what credentials do you have for war? There are many people on/. who have military experience, and you're not one of them.
This person obviously didn't even read the article before flaming Katz's ass. And, more unforgivable, the three people who modded him up obviously didn't read it either. A discussion site like/. is one of the more incredible uses of the internet but it really only works when people think a little. So, before you post your pearls of wisdom, please READ THE FUCKING ARTICLES.
There are several misconceptions here that need to be cleared up. Rather than simple reactionary blasts from the right, we need to look at the situation from a more pragmatic situation.
China has 20 or so CSS-4 ICBMs targeted at US cities. Don't think they'd use them?
Of course they would - in the event of a direct threat to their territory, including (possibly) Taiwan. As long as we're not planning on invading Hong Kong, we're safe on the first part. The second? I have serious doubts that a situation would come that would force the Chinese leadership to use nukes over Taiwan. What you've got to remember about the Han people is that they have the 'long view'. They are perfectly willing to wait to get what they want. That's always worked for them before. The Han are a very patient people as long as you stay out of there territory. Please read a fine book on their history China: A New History.
First of all, you have to get a suitcase nuke. They're not exactly easy to make
Actually, they're not nearly as difficult as you'd think. Those first ones were huge because they were the first ones. The prototype of anything is always rougher than the production model. Besides which, you're over engineering the problem == you're thinking plutonium. In the 1950s the U.S. produced a uranium nuke for the 8" artillery piece. It weighed about 250 pounds and was about 30" inches high. That will fit in a 55 gallon barrel rather nicely. The most difficult part of the device to make would be the beryllium inner casing. Machining the uranium could easily be done on just about any CNC machine. Sintering the beryllium would probably be much harder, but there may be commercial machinery that I'm not aware of that could be modified to do so.
Finally, suitcase nukes are low-yield (as in around one kiloton).
Yield in the above device was upwards of 12 kilotons. Which is a rather large bang and more than enough to make any city unlivable for a couple of decades at least.
The laws of physics and science dictate that people will ultimately begin to withdraw from the stress and complexity of an attention-devouring universe.
Huh? I have not had any complaints about Katz's work before, unlike many others on slashdot, but this statement confounds me. First, physics is a science the last time I looked. Second, exactly what laws of science tell us this?
I realize that he is just summarizing the contents of the book, but to present the author's view in a supportive manner as he does and then use this statement tells me that Katz is not quite as bright as he pretends to be.
I've used the slashcode filters to weed out articles on christmas and a couple of other things I have little interest in. Guess I'll have to add Katz to that list.
think 3 times before personally buying anything for myself from Compaq.
Tell me about it. I bought my first laptop last year from Compaq, a Presario 1200. While that is their lowest end model, I bought it because I wasn't certain how much I'd end up using a laptop, having never had one before. Didn't want to dump 2 grand into something that I'd only use on vacations. Turned out I love the damn thing; took me about a month to decide to use it as my primary system. With support for dual monitors I get to keep my 17" CRT and I don't have to sync files.
OTOH, I will not buy from Compaq again. I wanted to put Win2k on the laptop and was having some problems with video drivers. It turns out, according to an email from Compaq support, that they are not licensed to support win2k on that model. Apparently Bill Gates is now dictating to hardware companies what equipment they are allowed to write drivers for.
Next time I'll go for a higher end system that says IBM on the label.
I did pretty much the same thing with an old IBM p133 w/ 32mb. Dropped a 30gb hard drive in along with a soundblaster live value and 10/100. Have the audio running to my stereo's DAT input. Sorta solved the reboot problem by putting Win2k on it. You're not going to do much besides winamp, but it does run.
Nice to see a federal judge treat domain names like real estate. Hopefully this sends a signal to Network Solutions that domains are not "like telephone numbers". I'll see your circuit court judge and raise a US district court judge.
Remember what happened to the U.S. economy in the 1930s as a result of projects like the Tennessee Valley damming? The worst economic crisis in our nation's history, that's what.
Got that a little backwards. The crisis came first. The TVA was one (the first?) of Roosevelt's projects to put people to work. Boulder dam was another.
I find it both amusing and revealing that the first comments moderated up on the subject of attempts to improve the way that we interact with our computers were negative and supportive of the status quo.
You'd think that/.ers would be more open to attempts at making things easier rather than supporting a technology that is over one hundred years old. Let's hear it for tradition over efficiency!
"The right of authorship can only be exercised once," he said. "Once the product has entered the marketplace, with the author's agreement, he can no longer engage rights of authorship"
Maybe this means that we're finally going to start seeing some common sense legal decisions concerning software. This stuff should be just like any other product: I buy it - I own it. Period. I can give it away, sell it, put it on the mantle and admire it or throw it away as I choose.
I may be wrong, but isn't it a stated part of our goal in the penal system to rehabilitate criminals? No matter what you think of Mitnick, he is legally a criminal. The problem becomes one of rehab policy. I just can't understand any sort of thinking that says that a person with valuable and useful skills should be denied the right to even speak of those skills. (The argument about serial killers and rapists doesn't apply - rape and murder are not useful skills in a civilized society.) This has to be a violation of the 4th amendment by any sort of common sense interpretation... uh, common sense...judicial system...technophobia... Never mind. Hey Mitnick, can you say "Would you like fries with that?"
2. Regulation of Internet Access is Good. We need Open Competition between providers. We don't need restrictions on this. We also need guarantees that when we order DSL or Cable Modems, they'll be installed in 10 working days (or less), and that outages are fixed promptly.
This statement sounds good, but it is inherently contradictory. Guarantees on services means more regulation not less. If the government keeps to just making sure there is open access, then free market principles will ensure that service is up to par. If I can have my choice of providers then the one I choose will have to keep me happy.
4. Censorship is Bad.
In case you haven't noticed, cphack and the article on "PS2 + Upscan Converter = Easy DVD to VHS Copying" proves that, in the long run, censorship is impossible. The nature of the internet is such that any information, good or bad, is going to be available to anyone. It may prove damned difficult to get around, but I'm willing to bet on wonderful libertarian, anarchist or just plain mule-headed, contrary hackers to stay at least one step ahead of the censors.:)
6. The only other regulation we need is guaranteed low-cost access for anyone, like basic telephone service. No matter where they live in rural or remote areas. Tax the high-speed access people for this.
As Steve B said "Nonsense. In rural areas, some things naturally cost less (e.g. land) and some things naturally cost more (e.g. wiring). Deal. Or move" Life is a series of trade-offs. Living in the middle of Denver gives you access to DSL, plentiful fine restuarants, bountiful highpaying job opportunities, smog, sirens, rabid Bronco fans:), etc, ad nauseum. Polkville, NC on the other hand, means modem access, no rushhour traffic, low cost of living, great scenery and lousy paying jobs at the cotton mill. Every person has to decide what they want and what they are willing to do without. There is nothing government can or should do about this.
And the worst for last:
3. Taxation is still inevitable. Stop whining.
Do you honestly think that the only reason that governments haven't already imposed taxes is because they don't want to 'stifle innovation'? The last thing a county commissioner is worried about is innovation. This is one of those situations where governmental infighting is working for the people. Nobody can figure out a tax structure that will make everybody happy. There is no way for municipal, county or state governments to track and tax internet transactions short of opening every parcel that moves through the area. The only possible means of taxation would be a national sales tax combined with a complete moratorium on residential delivery of parcel post packages of international origin. Municipal and county governments are never going to allow the first because they will not be able to get their sticky little fingers on any of the money. The second is safely beyond the realm of possibility under our current form of government
As long as the internet structure exists, the only way that censorship, taxation and draconian regulations are going to be a long term problem is for them to be imposed by a world government. I don't see that happening any time in the coming century.
Can machines become sentient? What is the true nature of 'personality' or the 'soul'?
The fact that we can discuss the subject meaningfully shows that we are living in one of the most exciting times in history. Thanks to technology we will shortly be able to shed light upon a few of the larger philosophical questions. (That's not to say that we'll answer them, but our way of looking at them will be drastically altered.)
What happens when somebody admits to (or attempting to) clone a human being? Will the procedure work, will it produce a sentient human being? What social, theological and philosophical interpretations will be placed upon the answers to these questions?
Whether machines can truly become sentient or not depends, ultimately, upon the nature and origin of intelligence. Genetic engineering is more likely to provide some answers to this before computers will, but computers will overtake them in the next couple of decades. Hans Moravec, at CMU, has been talking for at least fifteen years about 'uploading' ourselves into machine housings of some sort and it looks like we'll get the opportunity before long. Personally I can't wait to find out.
Slashdot Mirror
I was one of those teenagers. Not in the debate you are describing, but one held at Colorado State University back around 1980. The debate was very useful in that I came away from it suitably impressed by the clear victory of the biology professor who was debating the creationist Duane Gish.
After the debate that I attended, I began reading outside of the narrow list of 'scientists' my church and parochial school presented me with. It didn't take me long to learn the difference between evidence and belief.
I think it proves very well the point John Stuart Mill made in On Liberty: any idea should be debated. If it's not true, it will be exposed; if it is, it will be strengthened.
If there were more english minors amongst the
Video:
Audio:
The rest is just a basic Celeron box. Admittedly, $750 might be pushing it a little with the high end audio, but at least with this box you could upgrade individual components.
Oh? You don't have any mp3s/oggs that don't belong to you on your hard drive then? And you haven't allowed anyone else to log onto your school/work network because their account wasn't working right? No speeding tickets lately either?
For that matter, your number 6 might just get you sent for spreading hatred and advocating the violent deaths of members of a group based soley upon their opinions as to the relative worth of animals to humans.
Ok, I admit it. I'm confused. I thought a smaller die size increased heat. Less surface area to radiate from.
Gotta love the last line:
Next year is always the best time to buy a new PC.
Ok, I'm not paying $100 for audio cables.
They're interconnects. And, no, that's not the difference between "bar and grill" and "fine food and spirits" (price and fancy clothes). You really can tell the difference in the sound. Plus, the cables are guaranteed for life. You'll never need to buy another cable. Doesn't matter what happens, they'll fix or replace them.
Look at:
Transparent Audio
Kimber Kable
Nordost
these are just three of the makers. There's several more companies who's sole reason for existing is making audio/video interconnects and speaker cabling. Heck, even eBay has a category for interconnects - interconnects.
The real question is: do I really need $100 audio cables? Not really with my current equipment. However, if I buy a little better quality now, when I upgrade my amp and pre, I'll already have the right cabling.
For all of you hackers who think I'm crazy for spending that kind of money on cables, just think of all the money you spend on your bleeding edge, early adopter hardware. We all have our hobbies.
I have to agree that the variable bit rate sounds better than the constant. However, through my equipment, mp3s have a distinct lower quality than cds. There is a noticable improvement when they are burned to audio though, so it is not a lack in the mp3 format, just in my mp3 playing hardware. I have a very difficult time telling the difference between a song from a pressed cd and one that I have ripped, encoded and then burned back to cd audio format.
I have a Rotel amp and pre. My source is a Harman Kardon FL8550 cd changer. My speakers are JBL S38 "bookshelf" speakers (they're bookshelf only if you have a BIG bookshelf.)
My soundblaster live value card can't compete with the FL8550's dual 20 bit Burr-Brown digital to analog converters. My next equipment purchase is going to be an Onkyo SE-U55 USB sound processor. Hopefully, that should let me use mp3s for more than casual listening.
One last thing: if you think computer addictions can be expensive, just try getting hooked on audiophile quality hardware! The interconnects I'm going to buy are over a $100 each for the bottom end of the line. But you can hear the difference.
For the first time in my personal experience of reading /. Katz has finally discovered a subject in which he is willing to admit he's not an expert. And how do the typical /. nitwits react? They flame him anyway. Example is the over-moderated parent of this post:
This person obviously didn't even read the article before flaming Katz's ass. And, more unforgivable, the three people who modded him up obviously didn't read it either. A discussion site like /. is one of the more incredible uses of the internet but it really only works when people think a little. So, before you post your pearls of wisdom, please READ THE FUCKING ARTICLES.
There are several misconceptions here that need to be cleared up. Rather than simple reactionary blasts from the right, we need to look at the situation from a more pragmatic situation.
Of course they would - in the event of a direct threat to their territory, including (possibly) Taiwan. As long as we're not planning on invading Hong Kong, we're safe on the first part. The second? I have serious doubts that a situation would come that would force the Chinese leadership to use nukes over Taiwan. What you've got to remember about the Han people is that they have the 'long view'. They are perfectly willing to wait to get what they want. That's always worked for them before. The Han are a very patient people as long as you stay out of there territory. Please read a fine book on their history China: A New History. Actually, they're not nearly as difficult as you'd think. Those first ones were huge because they were the first ones. The prototype of anything is always rougher than the production model. Besides which, you're over engineering the problem == you're thinking plutonium. In the 1950s the U.S. produced a uranium nuke for the 8" artillery piece. It weighed about 250 pounds and was about 30" inches high. That will fit in a 55 gallon barrel rather nicely. The most difficult part of the device to make would be the beryllium inner casing. Machining the uranium could easily be done on just about any CNC machine. Sintering the beryllium would probably be much harder, but there may be commercial machinery that I'm not aware of that could be modified to do so. Yield in the above device was upwards of 12 kilotons. Which is a rather large bang and more than enough to make any city unlivable for a couple of decades at least.Thanks. Best chuckle I've had all weekend.
Huh? I have not had any complaints about Katz's work before, unlike many others on slashdot, but this statement confounds me. First, physics is a science the last time I looked. Second, exactly what laws of science tell us this?
I realize that he is just summarizing the contents of the book, but to present the author's view in a supportive manner as he does and then use this statement tells me that Katz is not quite as bright as he pretends to be.
I've used the slashcode filters to weed out articles on christmas and a couple of other things I have little interest in. Guess I'll have to add Katz to that list.
Tell me about it. I bought my first laptop last year from Compaq, a Presario 1200. While that is their lowest end model, I bought it because I wasn't certain how much I'd end up using a laptop, having never had one before. Didn't want to dump 2 grand into something that I'd only use on vacations. Turned out I love the damn thing; took me about a month to decide to use it as my primary system. With support for dual monitors I get to keep my 17" CRT and I don't have to sync files.
OTOH, I will not buy from Compaq again. I wanted to put Win2k on the laptop and was having some problems with video drivers. It turns out, according to an email from Compaq support, that they are not licensed to support win2k on that model. Apparently Bill Gates is now dictating to hardware companies what equipment they are allowed to write drivers for.
Next time I'll go for a higher end system that says IBM on the label.
I did pretty much the same thing with an old IBM p133 w/ 32mb. Dropped a 30gb hard drive in along with a soundblaster live value and 10/100. Have the audio running to my stereo's DAT input.
Sorta solved the reboot problem by putting Win2k on it. You're not going to do much besides winamp, but it does run.
Nice to see a federal judge treat domain names like real estate. Hopefully this sends a signal to Network Solutions that domains are not "like telephone numbers". I'll see your circuit court judge and raise a US district court judge.
Got that a little backwards. The crisis came first. The TVA was one (the first?) of Roosevelt's projects to put people to work. Boulder dam was another.
I find it both amusing and revealing that the first comments moderated up on the subject of attempts to improve the way that we interact with our computers were negative and supportive of the status quo.
You'd think that /.ers would be more open to attempts at making things easier rather than supporting a technology that is over one hundred years old. Let's hear it for tradition over efficiency!
I like the quote they use:
Maybe this means that we're finally going to start seeing some common sense legal decisions concerning software. This stuff should be just like any other product: I buy it - I own it. Period. I can give it away, sell it, put it on the mantle and admire it or throw it away as I choose.
I may be wrong, but isn't it a stated part of our goal in the penal system to rehabilitate criminals? No matter what you think of Mitnick, he is legally a criminal.
The problem becomes one of rehab policy. I just can't understand any sort of thinking that says that a person with valuable and useful skills should be denied the right to even speak of those skills. (The argument about serial killers and rapists doesn't apply - rape and murder are not useful skills in a civilized society.)
This has to be a violation of the 4th amendment by any sort of common sense interpretation... uh, common sense...judicial system...technophobia...
Never mind.
Hey Mitnick, can you say "Would you like fries with that?"
I think this one falls under the category:
'nuff said
well done.
This statement sounds good, but it is inherently contradictory. Guarantees on services means more regulation not less. If the government keeps to just making sure there is open access, then free market principles will ensure that service is up to par. If I can have my choice of providers then the one I choose will have to keep me happy.
In case you haven't noticed, cphack and the article on "PS2 + Upscan Converter = Easy DVD to VHS Copying" proves that, in the long run, censorship is impossible. The nature of the internet is such that any information, good or bad, is going to be available to anyone. It may prove damned difficult to get around, but I'm willing to bet on wonderful libertarian, anarchist or just plain mule-headed, contrary hackers to stay at least one step ahead of the censors. :)
6. The only other regulation we need is guaranteed low-cost access for anyone, like basic telephone service. No matter where they live in rural or remote areas. Tax the high-speed access people for this.
As Steve B said "Nonsense. In rural areas, some things naturally cost less (e.g. land) and some things naturally cost more (e.g. wiring). Deal. Or move" Life is a series of trade-offs. Living in the middle of Denver gives you access to DSL, plentiful fine restuarants, bountiful highpaying job opportunities, smog, sirens, rabid Bronco fans :), etc, ad nauseum. Polkville, NC on the other hand, means modem access, no rushhour traffic, low cost of living, great scenery and lousy paying jobs at the cotton mill. Every person has to decide what they want and what they are willing to do without. There is nothing government can or should do about this.
And the worst for last:
Do you honestly think that the only reason that governments haven't already imposed taxes is because they don't want to 'stifle innovation'? The last thing a county commissioner is worried about is innovation. This is one of those situations where governmental infighting is working for the people. Nobody can figure out a tax structure that will make everybody happy. There is no way for municipal, county or state governments to track and tax internet transactions short of opening every parcel that moves through the area. The only possible means of taxation would be a national sales tax combined with a complete moratorium on residential delivery of parcel post packages of international origin. Municipal and county governments are never going to allow the first because they will not be able to get their sticky little fingers on any of the money. The second is safely beyond the realm of possibility under our current form of government
As long as the internet structure exists, the only way that censorship, taxation and draconian regulations are going to be a long term problem is for them to be imposed by a world government. I don't see that happening any time in the coming century.
Can machines become sentient? What is the true nature of 'personality' or the 'soul'?
The fact that we can discuss the subject meaningfully shows that we are living in one of the most exciting times in history. Thanks to technology we will shortly be able to shed light upon a few of the larger philosophical questions. (That's not to say that we'll answer them, but our way of looking at them will be drastically altered.)
What happens when somebody admits to (or attempting to) clone a human being? Will the procedure work, will it produce a sentient human being? What social, theological and philosophical interpretations will be placed upon the answers to these questions?
Whether machines can truly become sentient or not depends, ultimately, upon the nature and origin of intelligence. Genetic engineering is more likely to provide some answers to this before computers will, but computers will overtake them in the next couple of decades. Hans Moravec, at CMU, has been talking for at least fifteen years about 'uploading' ourselves into machine housings of some sort and it looks like we'll get the opportunity before long. Personally I can't wait to find out.