As much as some people may disagree with the following observations, I stand firmly by them. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone's opinions, nor do I intend to demean nanotechnology personally for its beliefs or worldviews. But I do suspect that I must prescribe a course of action. Nanotechnology is not only immoral, but amoral. In theory, nanotechnology's contrivances are featherbrained but reflective of the localized normative attitudes among sadistic rotters of various stripes. But in reality, someone once said to me, "Nanotechnology's hypocrisy has reached a new low." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.
Let's be realistic: I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on nanotechnology's part to seek temporary tactical alliances with dim-witted antagonists of various stripes in order to organize a whispering campaign against me by next weekend. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that nanotechnology's convictions have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with improvident yobbos. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to impugn the patriotism of nanotechnology's opponents. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but my personal safety depends upon your starting to fight scurrility and slander, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the same.
This is perhaps not a syntax problem, but it remains a software problem (semantic). Clearly, the software didn't do what someone (falsely) assumed it would do.
Just now questioning the discovery? Hardly!
The entire physics community practically considered the "discovery" a joke at the time.
I remember a high energy person in our department
remarking something to the effect of "people
always discover the Higgs Boson when their
funding is about out."
This experiment being viewed critically is _hardly_ a development.
Umm. Hello? Where were you when the "free software
movement" truck drove by? I think you missed the point entirely.
First of all, the gimp happens to be a great
piece of software (try the latest development versions). More importantly, however, it's not about how good the software is, it's about FREEDOM. Using the gimp, your freedom is insured
by the nature of it's license. Using photoshop, you are completely unfree to use/copy/modify the program.
I'm suprised how uninformed the/. community
has become concerning the differences between
software licenses. I for one hope that this
damn company goes bankrupt immediately. I for
one do NOT want to be using crappy, proprietary
software on my desktop. Not as long as it acts to
deny me of basic freedoms (use/copy/modify). This company can go to hell, to be blunt. They said
it loud and clear, they want to capitalize on the
good nature of others work, while in no way contributing back to the free software community.
Bah!
License termination clauses are 100% non-free. No license can be free, or even open, with a license termination clause of any sort- because at any time, the licenser is free to restrict the freedoms which should be inherant to the code. If for instance, I release an operating system under
an "open" license with a termination clause, then
any developer is fooling himself if he thinks he has any freedom in the situation, because at any time, the licenser can remove all those freedoms.
Aren't lots of us missing the point? If you're a nazi, you can start burning books about capitalism because that may be what the majority of the populace agrees against. Admittedly, comparing the code to a virus with a work on capitalism sounds like a stretch, but there is an important point. Simply put, the point of free speech (and the U.S. constitution in general) is not to protect the status quo. The purpose is to protect the very people and the rights to their ideas that the status quo despises. Rights are guaranteed for those accused, rights are guaranteed for those who are the victimized by society.
We may not like or approve of the obviously intended purpose of distributed codes (viruses, cracks), but that gives us no right to prevent people from communicating in that way. This is the point of all this- it's about time code was protected by speech. Plain and simple, code communicates ideas. Like a book on building bombs, having this information may make you resposible for it's proper usage, but you are not a criminal for communicating the information contained within it.
As a scientist, I find it necessary to say, having read this, that it is almost entirely based in fiction. I apologize for the length of this response, but I'd like to cover just a few of the points the author makes which are so clearly not truths.
The author begins by claiming that peoples two hundred years ago were not interested in communicating with other worlds, based on the fact that they were unable to. In the same breath he claims that we are currently interested in things that we are not able to do (nanotech).
The next paragraph clearly states that the only reason we cannot simulate exceedingly complex systems is based lack of time. This was clearly written by someone not familiar with modern physics. In fact, we cannot simulate even simple systems because we cannot know with any certainty the initial conditions that would allow a simulation to occur. Namely, knowing momentum obscures are precision with regard to position. In a complex system, ie: one in which time dependant events are exponentially dependant on initial conditions, predicting the outcome of even the simplest systems can be impossible. The study of nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory has shown time and time again, that even in dynamic systems which attract towards two or three steady states, fractal basin boundaries can make it entirely impossible to predict the final state of a system. These are systems as simple as pendulums, and oscillating circuits. To claim we could make perfect simulated replicas or predictions regarding whole worlds with thousands of dynamic elements is quite frankly, offensive.
The human genome project will certainly take us much closer in many respects to understanding the human animal, but nowhere near understanding human biology completely. Again, the human body is a complex system. The heart for instance may normally oscillate in a predictable pattern- but it is by no means a completely stable system. Give slight perturbations, we know the heart's beats will move into a completely chaotic regime. This chaotic oscillation might settle down to regular, rythmic pumping, or as a chaoticist might say, stop all together under the external influence of a flapping butterfly's wing. What's important is that we are nowhere near understanding it all. Even if one person WAS, that wouldn't mean the whole world whould become uninterested. Claiming the whole world will become non-curious after the human genome project has been completed is actually pretty funny, but it has no actual merit.
You recommend that the human population start using only sections of the electromagnetic spectrum which would be deflected at the atmosphere. I don't think it takes a scientist to know that this is just plain silly. What percentage of the electromagnetic spectrum does the author suppose to be deflected by the atmosphere? Would this be anywhere near the room our current communications reguire? No. Also, the author is wrong in assuming we can point electromagnetic radiation as accurately as we like. Quantum mechanics assures us that diffraction will always be a part of even the most precisely engineered equipment. Using the electromagnetic spectrum and bleeding out electromagnetic radiation outside of our atmosphere go hand in hand.
Nonsense. DeCSS has nothing to do with copying movies. If I myself was interested in copying dvd's and had the hardware to do it, decrypting them first would be a terrible waste of my time. DeCSS is about letting people who don't have access to proprietary players enjoy the dvd's that they paid for. In particular, this includes the world of linux users who have been neglected entirely by producers of dvd-viewing software.
You're absolutely right, in that the decision SHOULD fall to the one who it most critically effects. However!, the parents in this case are only secondarily effected- it is the CHILD who is most effected, and it is the CHILD who is being neglected a choice. Killing a child because a PARENT doesn't believe he will be happy, is an exercise in convenience, not ethics.
Realistically, people terminate fetuses, euthanize the old and turn their heads to others sufferings because it is convenient. Instead, we should consider what incredible possibilities a newborn life presents the world with.
And the argument for overpopulation is equally ridiculous- especially the notion that parents have an ethical responsibility to have small familes so that each child may be nurtured. Katz brough this up with the septuplets. Well, seeing as my parents both came from families of 11+ kids with single incomes, I have to disregard this idea as ludicrous. I can assure you that my parent in fact appreciated the inconvenience they brought upon their parents a great deal, and where consequentaly "nurtured" far greater than they would have if they had been terminated pre-birth!
Once upon a time, mode 13h was an applicable standard which really helped direct aspiring game developers learn to program. Nowadays, it seems the same is true of OpenGL. When 13h grew into relative obscurity, we saw a tons of competing ideas (some good, some bad) move in, all attemptimg to control future game development. Today, as limits in the original OpenGL specification become more apparent, do you forsee a coming standards war pertaining to game api's? If so, where would you like to see development in the future?
Re:Science, Religion, and giving up ground
on
Galileo's Daughter
·
· Score: 1
Catholicism has never made claims about science- other than that science can help us understand creation (God's Work). Consequentaly, the church doesn't just randomly make statements (and never have made official statements) supporting or denying one idea or another, as long as each idea accepts the possibility that it was inspired by an intelligent creator. Evolution in no way destroys the possibility of a creator. In fact, it lends insight into how brilliant a creator would have to be. On the other hand, fundamental creationism doesn't deny the existance of a creator either- so as far as the church cares, either one is equally acceptable. (although most reasonably people have seen the CLEAR evidence that evolution makes sense...) scott olsson
The fact is, binary only drivers ARE worse than source drivers. If you don't believe this, you are smoking crack. We only have to look to a certain KERNEL to realize the potential gains of open source hardware support.
Now, consider a certain hardware company (creative labs) who just released their sblive driver, binary only of course. Guess what? It ONLY works with the 2.2.5 kernel. Now, excuse me, but if this isn't broken, what is?
Companies like 3dfx don't release hardware specs because they are either scared of what we might learn about their boards (they suck), or have an irrational fear of what other companies might do if they knew something about them. Heaven help us if Montego ever found out how to write drivers for a sblive!! Oh no!!!
And, btw, if you think closed source drivers are okay as long as they work, then you aren't really part of the linux community. This community is based on openness, and solid code design. Not the fear, uncertainty and doubt 3dfx is slinging around.
Absolutely ignorant. This boggles my mind. Oh well.
What continues to frustrate ME, is that these ignorant reporters always claim that linux just doesn't make a nice desktop solution for anyone, while I know pretty damn well that it is the ONLY viable solution for me. There are an uncountable number of features which I "take for granted" in linux, that I simpy could NOT do without.
And as linus might say, who gives a rat's arse if they don't use/like it? Linus would *probably* say he didn't give a rat's arse if noone but he himself used it- that's why he wrote it in the first place...
Every one of these reporters has just _got_ to put a "spin" on linux and explain why it's not a microsoft killer. No? Well, it's killed microsoft in this neck of the woods...
FUD alert. OMG, we have 5 different windowing systems (umm... I can think of way more off the top of my head...). That must be a problem, right? Giving users a CHOICE?!?
You know, I've never had windowmaker crash my machine. I've had it lock to where I had to telnet in from my other console and kill x, but never actually crash my machine. I imagine other people have had similar experiances with other windowmanagers- hence, not everyone using windowmaker.
I pity those who don't know any better- all those poor "tech specialists" in his audience, eating every bit of nonsence he spoonfed them...
Am I the only skeptic here? Why am I not impressed at all that dell is "offering" linux for 99 bucks. Umm... can we put the price of win98 (which we won't be purchasing) towards that 99 dollars...? Something tells me the answer is no. Instead- we're still paying for windows, and we get slapped with a ridiculous 99 fee- linux or windows, from dell's perspective the installation is hardly any different. If I recall correctly, you used to be able to get linux on a dell for $175. I guess it's on sale now.
Liquid Nitrogen a bit cheaper... for short term.
on
Mega Heat Sinks
·
· Score: 1
If you're going to be actively cooling your cpu, why not go the affordable route. Liquid nitrogen... at around $0.12 a liter, maybe a liter an hour... only $2.88/day... $20.16 dollars a weak... **ONLY** $1048.32/year!!
I just thought I'd remind some folks that a heat sinks job is to help take heat FROM the processor, not to go frosty and cool it off... a sink which dissipated heat fast enough to freeze doesn't by itself make any sense...
Slashdot Mirror
As much as some people may disagree with the following observations, I stand firmly by them. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone's opinions, nor do I intend to demean nanotechnology personally for its beliefs or worldviews. But I do suspect that I must prescribe a course of action. Nanotechnology is not only immoral, but amoral. In theory, nanotechnology's contrivances are featherbrained but reflective of the localized normative attitudes among sadistic rotters of various stripes. But in reality, someone once said to me, "Nanotechnology's hypocrisy has reached a new low." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.
Let's be realistic: I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on nanotechnology's part to seek temporary tactical alliances with dim-witted antagonists of various stripes in order to organize a whispering campaign against me by next weekend. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that nanotechnology's convictions have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with improvident yobbos. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to impugn the patriotism of nanotechnology's opponents. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but my personal safety depends upon your starting to fight scurrility and slander, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the same.
---
Brought to you by Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator.
>>
This is perhaps not a syntax problem, but it remains a software problem (semantic). Clearly, the software didn't do what someone (falsely) assumed it would do.
Just now questioning the discovery? Hardly! The entire physics community practically considered the "discovery" a joke at the time. I remember a high energy person in our department remarking something to the effect of "people always discover the Higgs Boson when their funding is about out." This experiment being viewed critically is _hardly_ a development.
Umm. Hello? Where were you when the "free software
movement" truck drove by? I think you missed the point entirely.
First of all, the gimp happens to be a great
piece of software (try the latest development versions). More importantly, however, it's not about how good the software is, it's about FREEDOM. Using the gimp, your freedom is insured
by the nature of it's license. Using photoshop, you are completely unfree to use/copy/modify the program.
It's about FREEDOM.
I'm suprised how uninformed the /. community
has become concerning the differences between
software licenses. I for one hope that this
damn company goes bankrupt immediately. I for
one do NOT want to be using crappy, proprietary
software on my desktop. Not as long as it acts to
deny me of basic freedoms (use/copy/modify). This company can go to hell, to be blunt. They said
it loud and clear, they want to capitalize on the
good nature of others work, while in no way contributing back to the free software community.
Bah!
scott olsson
Ahem.
License termination clauses are 100% non-free. No license can be free, or even open, with a license termination clause of any sort- because at any time, the licenser is free to restrict the freedoms which should be inherant to the code. If for instance, I release an operating system under
an "open" license with a termination clause, then
any developer is fooling himself if he thinks he has any freedom in the situation, because at any time, the licenser can remove all those freedoms.
How could this have NOT been implied by the GPL?
We may not like or approve of the obviously intended purpose of distributed codes (viruses, cracks), but that gives us no right to prevent people from communicating in that way. This is the point of all this- it's about time code was protected by speech. Plain and simple, code communicates ideas. Like a book on building bombs, having this information may make you resposible for it's proper usage, but you are not a criminal for communicating the information contained within it.
As a scientist, I find it necessary to say, having read this, that it is almost entirely based in fiction. I apologize for the length of this response, but I'd like to cover just a few of the points the author makes which are so clearly not
truths.
The author begins by claiming that peoples two hundred years ago were not interested in communicating with other worlds, based on the fact that they were unable to. In the same breath he claims that we are currently interested in things that we are not able to do (nanotech).
The next paragraph clearly states that the only
reason we cannot simulate exceedingly complex systems is based lack of time. This was clearly written by someone not familiar with modern physics. In fact, we cannot simulate even simple systems because we cannot know with any certainty the initial conditions that would allow a simulation to occur. Namely, knowing momentum obscures are precision with regard to position. In a complex system, ie: one in which time dependant events are exponentially dependant on initial conditions, predicting the outcome of even the simplest systems can be impossible. The study of nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory has shown time and time again, that even in dynamic systems which attract towards two or three steady states, fractal basin boundaries can make it entirely impossible to predict the final state of a system. These are systems as simple as pendulums, and oscillating circuits. To claim we could make perfect simulated replicas or predictions regarding whole worlds with thousands of dynamic elements is quite frankly, offensive.
The human genome project will certainly take us much closer in many respects to understanding the human animal, but nowhere near understanding human biology completely. Again, the human body is a complex system. The heart for instance may normally oscillate in a predictable pattern- but it is by no means a completely stable system. Give slight perturbations, we know the heart's beats will move into a completely chaotic regime. This chaotic oscillation might settle down to regular, rythmic pumping, or as a chaoticist might say, stop all together under the external influence of a flapping butterfly's wing. What's important is that we are nowhere near understanding it all. Even if one person WAS, that wouldn't mean the whole world whould become uninterested. Claiming the whole world will become non-curious after the human genome project has been completed is actually pretty funny, but it has no actual merit.
You recommend that the human population start using only sections of the electromagnetic spectrum which would be deflected at the atmosphere. I don't think it takes a scientist to know that this is just plain silly. What percentage of the electromagnetic spectrum does the author suppose to be deflected by the atmosphere? Would this be anywhere near the room our current communications reguire? No. Also, the author is wrong in assuming we can point electromagnetic radiation as accurately as we like. Quantum mechanics assures us that diffraction will always be a part of even the most precisely engineered equipment. Using the electromagnetic spectrum and bleeding out electromagnetic radiation outside of our atmosphere go hand in hand.
I need to go take a nap.
Just add this line to /etc/hosts...
:)
216.92.118.211 www.amazon.com
Action is easy when the alternatives always
present themselves.
Nonsense. DeCSS has nothing to do with copying movies. If I myself was interested in copying dvd's and had the hardware to do it, decrypting them first would be a terrible waste of my time. DeCSS is about letting people who don't have access to proprietary players enjoy the dvd's that they paid for. In particular, this includes the world of linux users who have been neglected entirely by producers of dvd-viewing software.
You're absolutely right, in that the decision SHOULD fall to the one who it most critically effects. However!, the parents in this case are only secondarily effected- it is the CHILD who is most effected, and it is the CHILD who is being neglected a choice. Killing a child because a PARENT doesn't believe he will be happy, is an exercise in convenience, not ethics.
Realistically, people terminate fetuses, euthanize
the old and turn their heads to others sufferings because it is convenient. Instead, we should consider what incredible possibilities a newborn
life presents the world with.
And the argument for overpopulation is equally ridiculous- especially the notion that parents have an ethical responsibility to have small familes so that each child may be nurtured. Katz brough this up with the septuplets. Well, seeing as my parents both came from families of 11+ kids with single incomes, I have to disregard this idea as ludicrous. I can assure you that my parent in fact appreciated the inconvenience they brought upon their parents a great deal, and where consequentaly "nurtured" far greater than they would have if they had been terminated pre-birth!
scott olsson
Once upon a time, mode 13h was an applicable standard which really helped direct aspiring game developers learn to program. Nowadays, it seems
the same is true of OpenGL. When 13h grew
into relative obscurity, we saw a tons of
competing ideas (some good, some bad) move
in, all attemptimg to control future game
development. Today, as limits in the original
OpenGL specification become more apparent, do
you forsee a coming standards war pertaining to game api's? If so, where would you like to see
development in the future?
Catholicism has never made claims about science- other than that science can help us understand creation (God's Work). Consequentaly, the church doesn't just randomly make statements (and never have made official statements) supporting or denying one idea or another, as long as each idea accepts the possibility that it was inspired by an intelligent creator. Evolution in no way destroys the possibility of a creator. In fact, it lends insight into how brilliant a creator would have to be. On the other hand, fundamental creationism doesn't deny the existance of a creator either- so as far as the church cares, either one is equally acceptable. (although most reasonably people have seen the CLEAR evidence that evolution makes sense...) scott olsson
The fact is, binary only drivers ARE worse than source drivers. If you don't believe this, you are smoking crack. We only have to look to a certain KERNEL to realize the potential gains of open source hardware support.
Now, consider a certain hardware company (creative labs) who just released their sblive driver, binary only of course. Guess what? It ONLY works with the 2.2.5 kernel. Now, excuse me, but if this isn't broken, what is?
Companies like 3dfx don't release hardware specs because they are either scared of what we might learn about their boards (they suck), or have an irrational fear of what other companies might do if they knew something about them. Heaven help us if Montego ever found out how to write drivers for a sblive!! Oh no!!!
And, btw, if you think closed source drivers are okay as long as they work, then you aren't really part of the linux community. This community is based on openness, and solid code design. Not the fear, uncertainty and doubt 3dfx is slinging around.
Absolutely ignorant. This boggles my mind. Oh well.
What continues to frustrate ME, is that these ignorant reporters always claim that linux just doesn't make a nice desktop solution for anyone, while I know pretty damn well that it is the ONLY viable solution for me. There are an uncountable number of features which I "take for granted" in linux, that I simpy could NOT do without.
And as linus might say, who gives a rat's arse if they don't use/like it? Linus would *probably* say he didn't give a rat's arse if noone but he himself used it- that's why he wrote it in the first place...
Every one of these reporters has just _got_ to put a "spin" on linux and explain why it's not a microsoft killer. No? Well, it's killed microsoft in this neck of the woods...
scohop
FUD alert. OMG, we have 5 different windowing systems (umm... I can think of way more off the top of my head...). That must be a problem, right? Giving users a CHOICE?!?
You know, I've never had windowmaker crash my machine. I've had it lock to where I had to telnet in from my other console and kill x, but never actually crash my machine. I imagine other people have had similar experiances with other windowmanagers- hence, not everyone using windowmaker.
I pity those who don't know any better- all those poor "tech specialists" in his audience, eating every bit of nonsence he spoonfed them...
scohop
Am I the only skeptic here? Why am I not impressed at all that dell is "offering" linux for 99 bucks.
Umm... can we put the price of win98 (which we won't be purchasing) towards that 99 dollars...? Something tells me the answer is no. Instead- we're still paying for windows, and we get slapped with a ridiculous 99 fee- linux or windows, from dell's perspective the installation is hardly any different. If I recall correctly, you used to be able to get linux on a dell for $175. I guess it's on sale now.
If you're going to be actively cooling your cpu, why not go the affordable route. Liquid nitrogen... at around $0.12 a liter, maybe a liter an hour... only $2.88/day... $20.16 dollars a weak... **ONLY** $1048.32/year!!
FROST GUARANTEED!!
I just thought I'd remind some folks that a heat
sinks job is to help take heat FROM the processor, not to go frosty and cool it off... a sink which dissipated heat fast enough to freeze doesn't by itself make any sense...