Of course I read it. I hope you noticed that the claim that they were more efficient was immediately followed by a paragraph claiming they were more efficient to manufacture and that the cooling was more localized. Leaving it at least somewhat unclear as to whether the actually process of heat extraction was very efficient or just the method of use.
1. Said of a computer system with excessive or annoying security barriers, usage limits, or access policies. The implication is that said policies are preventing hackers from getting interesting work done. The variant "fascistic" seems to have been preferred at MIT, possibly by analogy with "touristic" (see tourist).
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, 1993-2000 Denis Howe
If these things are anything like Peltier devices then the energy crisis is going to get a lot worse. Solid state cooling take a ton of energy to perform a small amount of cooling.
I adds a lot of waste heat too. It would be funny to see the web farms have to upgrade their air conditioning plants because their chips require on-board heat disposal. A double whammy. Dissipate an extra 7C, but spend 200W to get it!
I read the summary and kind of chuckled at how the old people were so out of the loop that they couldn't install censorware. Sadly, I didn't wake up to the fact that I'm turning 33 in a few days until I read your follow-up.
So I declare that the rep is both naive and fascist were before I only thought he was fascist.
It seems like a wash at first glance, but there is actually *no way* that they are getting $30 in advertising from existing users (I run the site in my.sig and looked into advertising a while back).
So one can only conclude that they are looking for a new source of revenue. Given that they produce their own content, people must go there if they want to read it but will they be willing to pay in order to skip the ads? No way.
This is nothing more than an insincere wall to protect themselves from people bitching. For everyone who writes and complains, the form letter will go out saying, 'Oh, sure we know they are annoying but we *value* you most greatly as a client and have come up with a way to remove the ads in our new subscription plan.'
In this case you must show him how his money is going into a black hole by spamming. Find case studies and figure out the ROI for such an operation. If it turns out that spamming does actually have a decent ROI then...
Show him how the ill will generated by the spamming is losing him money. In particular you must show that he is losing more money than he is making.
If both those fail, then maybe he *should* be in the spam business.
Don't get me started on whether this should have been a federal program to begin with, but since it is we have to deal with it.
The idea is, primarily, to smooth the differences between rich and poor neighborhoods. My neighborhood could easily afford to put computers in the libraries, but not every one can. If the federal government is going to be involved this is a good reason for them to be. The differences in income in this country are largely due to differences in education. Differences in education are largely due to differences in affluence. Therefore, smoothing access to educational resources will ultimately (on a generational scale anyway) lead to a smoothing of class differences.
The problem is that the bill has been turned into a censorship bill and the right to refuse has been taken away from those who most need the help. My neighborhood could easily tell Dubya to go spank it, but the neighborhoods who need the help simply cannot do that.
Once you take away the choice, the censorship is all you are left with. Hopefully this thing will be stuck down and the money used to provide internet access instead of thought police.
I actually had a rather lengthy argument with my computer sciences teacher about this -- it is impossible to generate a truely random number.
I don't know which side of the argument you were on, but whoever said it is "impossible" is really really wrong. It's actually quite trivial.
More importantly, it's rarely useful to argue about the difference between a truly random and a pseudo-random number. This TCP story is one of the vast number where good pseudo-random numbers are plenty adequate.
The control of a particular TLD isn't the problem. The problem is that there is a particular TLD to begin with.
The US domain should have.com,.net and whatever the hell else we want under it. The UK (or China, or Iraq) shouldn't have to live by the contract law of the US simply because we got there first.
Most of the ads I see on television don't have a number to dial (the analog to a click through). They are about brand identity. If you were to measure their performance by subjecting them to the standard of how many people immediately buy a Ford or run down to the market to get a Bud then you would think ads were a stupid waste of money. But the vast majority of us know that 'Quality is...' for Ford, and, sadly, wazzzzup.
It's time for webvertisers to recognize the same thing. It isn't the click that counts, it's the mind space. That doesn't change just cause the ad is on a web site.
The KJV is not the only translation. The one I referenced was the New International Version.
Yes. I understand that. I'm very confused by your refusal to cite the passage though. I meant what I said. I saw nothing 'like' that in my KJV. Not that you were wrong. I just wanted to understand how the KJV said nothing like what you claim the NIV does.
The assumption is that someone who truly has faith will live that faith out and that his faith will be evinced in his actions. Someone who claims to live by the grace of Christ but who does not pass that grace on to others is not, in fact, living by it. Deeds are not a criterion but rather a natural expression of faith.
I understand that is what most Christians think. That is not what Matthew says though. Matthew says that deeds are *required*. This is the essence of why it is a contradiction. You can explain all you want why you believe the other passages to be more significant, that doesn't change the fact that the Matthew passage *contradicts* that. You asked for examples of contradictions, so there it is.
It does not matter 2 cents if gnutella is declared illegal, because it is a decentralised system. I thought that the entire point of gnutella is that it is beyond the bounds of control of government, being run by the people for the people, in the American cooperative tradition.
Except that the net is IP based and, if found illegal, it would be easy to have the courts demand that ISPs cooperate with turning in the gnutella users. Fine them each $500 a pop and you end up with something a lot like speeding. People do it, but only within reason and only when they have a good chance of not being caught. This is precisly what the RIAA wants. Free advertising, but nothing so pervasive as to cut into profits.
That might be fun to build one even if this tech doesn't see the light of day. Useful for hiding it near one of those GPS game spots. hhehe
Yeah. Hang them from trees and lead folks around in 4K circles in the woods! Then make wierd noises from off in the distance and leave bundles of twigs and stuff outside their tents every night.:-)
Think being a co-op high schooler is grunt work, try being a post-doc or god forbid a grad student at a major physics lab. Grunt grunt grunt.
Seriously. You will get out of it what you put in to it. The company may not be 100% what you think they promised, but you must put in 100% anyway. So they have you doing crap work. What do you do at lunch and on breaks? Are you talking with the engineers (or hanging with your buddies)? Are you reading whatever they have laying around (or did you bring in a copy of you sociology text to study)? Are you showing a willingness to learn (or are you moaning about the grunt work)?
Sometimes experiences are plain old rotten, but often times they can be made much better just by having the right attitude at the right time.
Luck, after all, is mostly just preparedness meeting opportunity.
But since you claim to be open-minded, please present a direct biblical contradiction, and I will respond.
Ok. Let's start with the very first chapter of the very first book.
First the bible says that beasts were created first:
Genesis
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Then it says the man was created first:
Genesis
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Want another?
How about the very salvation that many take for granted. According to Matthew Jesus said that saying his name wasn't enough you also have to do deeds:
Matthew
7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
While Acts says that accepting Christ is plenty:
Acts
2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved..
This is pretty fundamental stuff, and the bible cannot keep a grip long enough to set down the rules. What's a PBLC to do?
The belief in creation was already irrational. It won't take much for a mind already willing to accept a 10K year old earth, a flood for which there is no evidence, the manipulation of physics needed for us to see light from 10B years ago and the hundreds of biblical self contradictions (the death penalty being ok in one part then contradicted in another, different numbers of kids for the same dude depending on the author...) to bend further and contradict this evidence.
PBLCs (PBLC) have there beliefs and will stick to them. We could find ETs and they would come up with a way to relate it to Genesis.
Since I link to the PBLC node above, let me also throw in a plug for an anti-literal world view Things creationists hate.
You seem to have focused on the 'scratch the itch part'. If it isn't acclaim (and, of course, I didn't invent this idea. ESR popularized it in our culture) that drives people the release as I claim, then what is it in your explaination?
There are some fascinating and ugly quotes in here about how this guy goes after targets - a combination of harassment and threats against their service providers, admitted illegal actions, etc.
Look, we all bitch an moan about how the RIAA shouldn't be trying to shut down Napster. Why? Because they are doing nothing wrong. They are like a publisher of bomb making books.
The fact is, a crime is being committed. The RIAA should not be going after Napster, but you can bet your ass they should be going after the violaters. Like jammer in the story.
They are the ones causing all the problems. If you don't agree with a law (or a business practice in the case of the leeches at RIAA passing almost no money on to the artists) you don't have a right to break it (Thoreau aside for the moment as even in the case of civil disobedience you don't have a right to expect not to be jailed).
The reason this is our great hope is that the public won't stand for it. The RIAA attacked Napster because they knew that going after the fans was a loser. If this guy does it then one of two things is going to happen. Either Congress will pass laws at the request of the nation to fuck the RIAA, or the RIAA is going to realize that the nationwide boycott of their goods is costing more than sueing jammer can earn them and they'll come up with a better idea.
Of course with most free software, since there is no one promised a product that withdraw their money if it doesn't happen there aren't many deadlines.
Except that tons of software is written as a kind of modern day duel. Why else would someone write a message board when ten already exist? To scratch an itch? Partially, but that only explains why they write it, not why they gift it. They gift it in order to win the acclaim of their peers.
In order to win said acclaim you must be current. The deadlines are therefore sometimes much more onerous because they are less tangible. More like a nightmare where you are terrified and running, but you don't necessarily know from what instead of a deadling where you are running, but it's only because your boss said so and he has no spine, no brain and no power. The worst he can do is fire you and then you'll just go somewhere else for more money.
Let me get this straight. If I said to you "I think that Earth is the only life-bearing planet in the Solar System" you would call me hubristic?
No. I'm a dork who missed the solar system reference while trying to post and work at the same time.
Sorry.
Something was lost here, too. If your theory is obvious, why do you think it needs to be proven?
Because I want to be a research scientist and need funding...:-)
No, as I said in the very first line of my post I'm aware that the unexpected sometimes happens. That's why we do experiments to verify. I'm just saying the hubris comes from believing in the 10 angstrom slice that was left behind after occums razor cut through the evidence and said, 'geez guys, why would you seriously consider a lonely universe theory in the almost complete absence of any evidence to support it'.
I suppose it's not at all possible that the 'thing'(e.g. photon-like) is something undiscovered by human scientists thus far?
Yes, that's exactly right.
With the exception of a fringe group of WIMP researchers it is widely excepted that we know about all the particles that exist at normal energies. We've verified that research with research into many particles that don't exist at normal energies.
You got me with the whole spelling thing though. You're right, I can't spell. Why memorize what can be looked up. (and I'll give you a shiny new nickle if you know who to attribute that to)
Citing "hubris" as a reason to believe in life on other planets is pretty lame. Would it be hubristic to believe there was no life in the rest of the Solar System?
Yes. That was my position. It would be hubristic to believe that we are alone.
Concerns about hubris are really just the inductive principle: things around here are probably average. But note the "probably". Induction is a good way to come up with a new hypothesis, but calling the output "obvious" is a fallacy.
Ok. My theory is obvious and the fact that people don't see that is because of their hubris. As you say, the fact should be proven and I agree 100% on that. Somehow that thought in my head was lost in the translation to paper.
As for intelligent life: intelligence isn't some kind of "ulimate endpoint" of evolution
As for intelligence. I never said that the life elsewhere would be intelligent. Though I did say that in the absence of abundent life it was 'interesting' that the only place that it arose (here, of course) it would become intelligent.
I'd be the first to argue that the vast majority of life outside of earth was not self aware. (an easy bet since it's true here as well...)
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should have scoop put together freshvegetables.com for crap like this.
--
--
1. Said of a computer system with excessive or annoying security barriers, usage limits, or access policies. The implication is that said policies are preventing hackers from getting interesting work done. The variant "fascistic" seems to have been preferred at MIT, possibly by analogy with "touristic" (see tourist).
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, 1993-2000 Denis Howe
or
fascism 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
dictionary.com
authoritarian
1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
dictionary.com
Seems like they both work to me. Go pick a different nit
--
I adds a lot of waste heat too. It would be funny to see the web farms have to upgrade their air conditioning plants because their chips require on-board heat disposal. A double whammy. Dissipate an extra 7C, but spend 200W to get it!
--
So I declare that the rep is both naive and fascist were before I only thought he was fascist.
--
So one can only conclude that they are looking for a new source of revenue. Given that they produce their own content, people must go there if they want to read it but will they be willing to pay in order to skip the ads? No way.
This is nothing more than an insincere wall to protect themselves from people bitching. For everyone who writes and complains, the form letter will go out saying, 'Oh, sure we know they are annoying but we *value* you most greatly as a client and have come up with a way to remove the ads in our new subscription plan.'
Don't believe the hype.
--
In this case you must show him how his money is going into a black hole by spamming. Find case studies and figure out the ROI for such an operation. If it turns out that spamming does actually have a decent ROI then...
Show him how the ill will generated by the spamming is losing him money. In particular you must show that he is losing more money than he is making.
If both those fail, then maybe he *should* be in the spam business.
--
The idea is, primarily, to smooth the differences between rich and poor neighborhoods. My neighborhood could easily afford to put computers in the libraries, but not every one can. If the federal government is going to be involved this is a good reason for them to be. The differences in income in this country are largely due to differences in education. Differences in education are largely due to differences in affluence. Therefore, smoothing access to educational resources will ultimately (on a generational scale anyway) lead to a smoothing of class differences.
The problem is that the bill has been turned into a censorship bill and the right to refuse has been taken away from those who most need the help. My neighborhood could easily tell Dubya to go spank it, but the neighborhoods who need the help simply cannot do that.
Once you take away the choice, the censorship is all you are left with. Hopefully this thing will be stuck down and the money used to provide internet access instead of thought police.
--
I don't know which side of the argument you were on, but whoever said it is "impossible" is really really wrong. It's actually quite trivial.
More importantly, it's rarely useful to argue about the difference between a truly random and a pseudo-random number. This TCP story is one of the vast number where good pseudo-random numbers are plenty adequate.
--
The US domain should have
Down with
--
It's time for webvertisers to recognize the same thing. It isn't the click that counts, it's the mind space. That doesn't change just cause the ad is on a web site.
--
Yes. I understand that. I'm very confused by your refusal to cite the passage though. I meant what I said. I saw nothing 'like' that in my KJV. Not that you were wrong. I just wanted to understand how the KJV said nothing like what you claim the NIV does.
The assumption is that someone who truly has faith will live that faith out and that his faith will be evinced in his actions. Someone who claims to live by the grace of Christ but who does not pass that grace on to others is not, in fact, living by it. Deeds are not a criterion but rather a natural expression of faith.
I understand that is what most Christians think. That is not what Matthew says though. Matthew says that deeds are *required*. This is the essence of why it is a contradiction. You can explain all you want why you believe the other passages to be more significant, that doesn't change the fact that the Matthew passage *contradicts* that. You asked for examples of contradictions, so there it is.
--
Except that the net is IP based and, if found illegal, it would be easy to have the courts demand that ISPs cooperate with turning in the gnutella users. Fine them each $500 a pop and you end up with something a lot like speeding. People do it, but only within reason and only when they have a good chance of not being caught. This is precisly what the RIAA wants. Free advertising, but nothing so pervasive as to cut into profits.
--
Yeah. Hang them from trees and lead folks around in 4K circles in the woods! Then make wierd noises from off in the distance and leave bundles of twigs and stuff outside their tents every night.
--
--
Seriously. You will get out of it what you put in to it. The company may not be 100% what you think they promised, but you must put in 100% anyway. So they have you doing crap work. What do you do at lunch and on breaks? Are you talking with the engineers (or hanging with your buddies)? Are you reading whatever they have laying around (or did you bring in a copy of you sociology text to study)? Are you showing a willingness to learn (or are you moaning about the grunt work)?
Sometimes experiences are plain old rotten, but often times they can be made much better just by having the right attitude at the right time.
Luck, after all, is mostly just preparedness meeting opportunity.
--
Verse? I'm not seeing anything like that in my KJV.
I would refer you to the second chapter of the book of James. James clarifies this apparent paradox by pointing out that faith is all that is required
Then why did the verse I cited say that deeds were also required?
--
Ok. Let's start with the very first chapter of the very first book.
First the bible says that beasts were created first:
Genesis
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Then it says the man was created first:
Genesis
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Want another?
How about the very salvation that many take for granted. According to Matthew Jesus said that saying his name wasn't enough you also have to do deeds:
Matthew
7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
While Acts says that accepting Christ is plenty:
Acts
2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved..
This is pretty fundamental stuff, and the bible cannot keep a grip long enough to set down the rules. What's a PBLC to do?
--
PBLCs (PBLC) have there beliefs and will stick to them. We could find ETs and they would come up with a way to relate it to Genesis.
Since I link to the PBLC node above, let me also throw in a plug for an anti-literal world view Things creationists hate.
--
--
Look, we all bitch an moan about how the RIAA shouldn't be trying to shut down Napster. Why? Because they are doing nothing wrong. They are like a publisher of bomb making books.
The fact is, a crime is being committed. The RIAA should not be going after Napster, but you can bet your ass they should be going after the violaters. Like jammer in the story.
They are the ones causing all the problems. If you don't agree with a law (or a business practice in the case of the leeches at RIAA passing almost no money on to the artists) you don't have a right to break it (Thoreau aside for the moment as even in the case of civil disobedience you don't have a right to expect not to be jailed).
The reason this is our great hope is that the public won't stand for it. The RIAA attacked Napster because they knew that going after the fans was a loser. If this guy does it then one of two things is going to happen. Either Congress will pass laws at the request of the nation to fuck the RIAA, or the RIAA is going to realize that the nationwide boycott of their goods is costing more than sueing jammer can earn them and they'll come up with a better idea.
--
Except that tons of software is written as a kind of modern day duel. Why else would someone write a message board when ten already exist? To scratch an itch? Partially, but that only explains why they write it, not why they gift it. They gift it in order to win the acclaim of their peers.
In order to win said acclaim you must be current. The deadlines are therefore sometimes much more onerous because they are less tangible. More like a nightmare where you are terrified and running, but you don't necessarily know from what instead of a deadling where you are running, but it's only because your boss said so and he has no spine, no brain and no power. The worst he can do is fire you and then you'll just go somewhere else for more money.
--
No. I'm a dork who missed the solar system reference while trying to post and work at the same time.
Sorry.
Something was lost here, too. If your theory is obvious, why do you think it needs to be proven?
Because I want to be a research scientist and need funding...
No, as I said in the very first line of my post I'm aware that the unexpected sometimes happens. That's why we do experiments to verify. I'm just saying the hubris comes from believing in the 10 angstrom slice that was left behind after occums razor cut through the evidence and said, 'geez guys, why would you seriously consider a lonely universe theory in the almost complete absence of any evidence to support it'.
--
Yes, that's exactly right.
With the exception of a fringe group of WIMP researchers it is widely excepted that we know about all the particles that exist at normal energies. We've verified that research with research into many particles that don't exist at normal energies.
You got me with the whole spelling thing though. You're right, I can't spell. Why memorize what can be looked up. (and I'll give you a shiny new nickle if you know who to attribute that to)
--
Yes. That was my position. It would be hubristic to believe that we are alone.
Concerns about hubris are really just the inductive principle: things around here are probably average. But note the "probably". Induction is a good way to come up with a new hypothesis, but calling the output "obvious" is a fallacy.
Ok. My theory is obvious and the fact that people don't see that is because of their hubris. As you say, the fact should be proven and I agree 100% on that. Somehow that thought in my head was lost in the translation to paper.
As for intelligent life: intelligence isn't some kind of "ulimate endpoint" of evolution
As for intelligence. I never said that the life elsewhere would be intelligent. Though I did say that in the absence of abundent life it was 'interesting' that the only place that it arose (here, of course) it would become intelligent.
I'd be the first to argue that the vast majority of life outside of earth was not self aware. (an easy bet since it's true here as well...)
--