Because the wonder becomes obsolete in the default version -- and many of use don't like having all the walls disappear from out cities at once when it happens. (Nothing like having a depended upon defence disappear in the middle of a war, with no time to rebuild and not enough moneyt to replace it....)
Most of the things they talk about have *NOTHING* to do with science, and thus nothing to do with understanding science. In fact, they are mostly maters of religion, to which science is irrelavent.
If they want to know about people's understanding of science they need to look at thier understanding of the scientific method and scientific thought, perhaps philosophy of science, not this stuff.
Perhaps asking if psychic powers are scientifically varified, etc., would provide an iderrect clue to a limitted understanding of science (and a direct sign of ignorance of current theories and data) -- but asking if they believe in them in general is irrelavent. In fact, it make me wonder if the people who designed this "research" really understood science themselves.
Robots aren't likely to take try to take over by force in the too near future, nor will they have too. Lazy and geedy humans are more likely to put them in control so they can bask in their custodial care and waiste away in indulgence.
Also, the (largely forgoten) popular fear of the '80's about all the jobs going to machines is really comming true now. E.g., replacing five $30k/year employees with a computer and $60k/year technician may be good for the one technician/programer/whatever and for the company, but creates a net loss of four jobs for humans. This is tempting and helpful (at least in the short term) for those at the top, but woah to the population at large. This is the real robot take-over, and its happening NOW! Yet, ironically, my observation is that over use of over priced technology isn't even good in the long run, whatever the sales pitches may say.
I don't particularly like books -- I've given over half of mine away over the last year just to be rid of them. They are just a nessissary evil to aquire information.
But e-Books are much worse. My eyes can't take staring at a screan all that time -- I even print long e-mails (if they are too important to delete) rather than have to read them online -- and other thing too, hard to label, make read off a screan especially annoying. Not to mention price problems, loaning problems, etc. Anything other than a purely refference work (like an encyclopedia or dictionary) is something I won't be looking at on screan! (Of course, I don't like reading to begin with.)
I saw originals movies when they were re-aired on TV years ago. That Planet of the Apes had a good plot with thought and irony.
The trailors to this one were enough to disturb me. They seemed to shift the focus all on to "action," violent and otherwise; like many movies of the last decade or so, the trailor reminded me of the beginning of the Transformers cartoon, lots of stuff zooming around with flashes of violence. It was as though the the plot and implications had been thrown-out and all the influence placed on flashy effects and "exciting" action (that has become so cliche as to not to excite anyon anymore). OK, maybe the concept is well known, but if nothing is added to that.... it is though the these movies are being produced for (and often by) a culture that has been conditioned to find fast action and flashy effects as *THE* basis of enjoyment, yet is so habituated to them that they can never have enough or be really satisfied (so just lay it on more and more, "when everything feels like the movies").
The original was not an action movie, it had no hint of that style, and I think no intention of it. It was a story with a plot, a lot of points, and good use of irony. The trailors give the impression of a movie that rips of the Planet of the Apes name and setting to make proffiteering sequal, and cheapnes the whole idea in the process.
The trailors sold me on NOT seeing this moving long ago.
Dumb (Public): Very simple, even idiotic password for things I plan to share and are not sensitive ("mage," "thanku"). I don't care who knows there - think "hint, not scrurity."
Sloppy and reused: but slightly cryptic: easily derived from words and for insignificant things. (I don't care if someone cracks access to my Consumer Reports Online.)
Decent: Good enough for typical use. (My POP3 accounts.)
Unique and Bizarre: Based onobsured things, multiply encoded in bizarre (non-mechanical) ways, full of numbers and symbols, never reused, and hard to invent. (For important stuff, like root, finacial services, webservice, etc.)
I, at least, find this a practical system, there being a time and a place for all levels of goodness.
I learned some time ago that the "easy to upgrade" line so often attributed to Linux was not quite true. This RPM won't install until you get two more, each of which also have a couple requiremnet, and so on, until your practically upgrading the whole system (and spending all week combing the internet for the files) -- and its usually not long until something is required that just doesn't work or can't be found.
So, I went to compiling from source so my binaries and libraries would be generally compatible -- that way I only needed four other packages to upgrade one....
Putting code in libraries for re-use sounds really good until you realize just how interdependent everything has gotten.
My math estimates a few thousand square miles of 5% efficient (at 1% overall system efficiency) collectors would satisfy all our energy needs. (If you think that's too much area, imagine explaining how much area would be paved over in 2001 to a guy from the 19th century. It can be done.)
My question is not "can it be done?" but (environmentally speaking) "should it be done?" Think of all the mile of nature destroyed on our already over-crowding planet. Some of the solution, of course, may involve population (which may "solve" itself with disease), but in mean time, perhap better plan would be more efficiency / less waste. It may be that this (alone) is not the best way -- but if it were efficient it might be help. And using on the massive wasteland of city and suburban roof tops might just be a good idea.
Of course, I suppose ecconomics could get in the way (damn if I don't hate captitalism and suspect its the best we can hope for at the same time)....:(
So many phrases are implicit in the English language, and even more (and more complex) phrases become implicit with cutlure and subject related effect, that I'm not surprised more "cheaters" were not identified. Frankly, I find the procedure to sound like a lazy way around both judge and some reasonable variation of a due process -- and the results extremely dubius besides.
All I can say is I find this assessment hard to believe, not only of M$, but of companies in general. Companies are driven by the greed of those few at the top and powered by the effort of the exploited many at the bottom (most of whom have to worry too much about survival for luxuries like "ethics"). If nothing else, the time cruch theory hold -- but hell, I'm not sure there is a truly valid way to define theft in intellectual "property" [sic].
You mean there is disagreement, perhaps even non-conformity on the web! I thought, from reading posts here and in other places, that all forms for disagreement, nonconforminity, honest misunderstanding, and other such evil had all been eradicated from the 'net, and only the trolls remained prevent perfect concessus!:P
A "standard" that changes ever two minutes (as the HTML standard, for example, has), is not a standard, its a bad joke. Standards should be to foster consistency, not to redefine everything for every fad and frivelous whim.
I'd like to see a movement that was not only minimalistic, but blatantly rebelled against all the over complicated nuances of the "standards" -- all the idiocy added to HTML, which should be a simple language for marking up text with hyperlinks, and a few images and basic formatting -- and should be efficient, to.
What ever happened to "Best Viewed with a Budgie"?
A program change PS to a graphics format (like a virtual printer, substitutes *.bmp or *.xpm pixels for printer dots) would be handy -- does one exist?
(Does anyone want to make one?)
Changing any other (graphics) format would then be simple as [load] and [save-as] with any graphics editor.
Actually, SimCity (2000, anyway) is very free market; unlike LinCity (where players actually build "mills" etc.), the player merely zones land which and hopes for something good to pop up. City planning, deciding on ordinances, etc., is part of the game, along with zoning land, all things typical of democrat municipalities at least in the U.S.
But, if it were possible to all have the sims making free choices by AI, and have them act on their own, what would be left for the player to do? You could say the LEGO teaches authoritarianism, after all, kids (or others) decide what to build, and controls the whole world of the LEGO people, even their actions! But, its a toy, its creative, and its fun. Similar, Maxis prefers the term "Software Toys" for Sim-anything, because it is a toy, for users to manipulate toward whatever goal is wanted, whether size, a theme, beauty, etc.
Personally, I think seeing "teaching [bad-thing-X]" in such games as a sign of taking things way too seriously.
Back to the orignal point: Sim*, like Lego, is generally non-zero; you cuold, based on your attitude, make it otherwise, but as long as you are happy with it.
Yeah, like a rogue state or terrorist would actually use a missile. They'd just smuggle the the bomb into the country and plant it near their target. It's not as though doing so would be very difficult at all, and all that trillion dollar technology will prove completely useless. It's a total boondoggle.
Terrorist's, yes, they would probably smuggle a bomb is, or build it locally, or use something else instead. But "rogue states" are bound to use any weapon that any other state would use - though they may use terrorist in addition to more standard weapons.
In a way, though, I am bothered by the prevalence of the term "rogue states." Keeping weapons for defence against agressive states seems to be an absolutely nessicary evil. But "rogue" is an awfully vague term, and gives the impression it could also be an excuse to violate the soverenty of peacefully non-conformist countries as well.
"Nosferatu" is a German corruption of a Rommanian word (unless I've been badly misinformed); much as Trasylvania is in Rommanian, and the legend was brought from that general region of eastern Europe.
I can't find my German dictionary, but "Utarefson" ("Nosferatu" backward) doesn't look very German. Die would be toten, and dead is very similar, so I don't think so. It seems odd that anyone would bother playing such spelling trick in this case anyway, though my German is not good enough to be sure what the word for "Undead" would be.
AIDS is still much more common in gay men, but straight people can get it. Last I heard it was rising fastest in straight women, though that could have a relative increase, thus inflated by the that more men have it already.
BTW: "Nosferatu" does not literally mean "vampire" (at least not originally), but is derived from a word for "disease carrier," and was a title vampires shared with others -- though it was not specifically aimed at sexual diseases. Evil spirits and the walking dead make great explanations for plagues (think of the mideveal black death). Note also that garlic has some antivirulent properties, and also wards off vampires (coincidence, maybe, but maybe a part of the myths development).
Its even better (or worse, if you a corporate), in that a sort of poetic justice may develop (at least to an extent): Industry may be kicking its own ass by being slow to adapt to open source.
Look at all the open source desktop stuff being developed, even to the level of the non-expert. KDE with KOffice, the Gnome people, etc. Some of this may have developed anyway, due to "market forces" (free-as-in-beer, or cheap-as-in-distro, can be important to those of us who are far from being rich), but the delay in development of many types of software by proprietary vendors I'm sure sped this up. Even now, with all the hype and several major corporations talking Linux, many programs are not available for Linux -- I'd like to see (perhaps start, if I'm ever up to it) open source answers to EndNote and SPSS or SAS. And how much influence might the OS requirements on Civization contributed to FreeCiv getting under way? By the time the "industry" catchs up with GNU et al., they may find the market for much other than hardware drivers gone, having passed them by long ago.
(I also found it interresting the way the artical made a big deal of the Copyright -- clearly everyone posting here takes the implications of the GPL for granted, I'm not sure this mainstream media commentator fully grasped that, instead talking only of stering and direction, as though forking were a foreign concept.)
I, for one, am bothered by the very fact they sold their stock as "Linux" - my mother saw something about "Linux" stocks on the news, and ever since I can't get her to understand Linux per se is niether a company nor owned / produced by any particular company. Its misleading, and that is enough to concern me.
No, this is not a joke or a troll, I think s domain or ".-" would be a good idea.
The idea in this is that an official place for use on local intranets, like the "hobbyist" IPs (e.g., 10.x.x.x) in IPv4. And what would be better than a single character that doesn't stand for anything on its own? Of course, people could do this on there own with a character not likely to be so used -- but an officially agreed upon standard would still be a good idea. After all, I could make up a local domain, like.wyrdonia that I think no-one is using -- but recklessly making up domains is bound to cause confusion when some dweeb picks something simple this is in internet use; adding a recognized TL-non-Domain ("wyrdonia.-") would make it safe. (If someone wanted more than one local domain, thy could just create secondaries, of course.)
I see a real danger in the possibility that manipulative and/or paranoid microsoft officials might try to proclaim unrelated open source project to this. Basically, that there are bound to be accidental duplication, at least in terms of superficial similarities, for someone to claim that a piece of code was based in some way on the stolen source. With the ability to insight ignorant official and the public about dangerout "hackers" it would almost surprise me someone didn't try to claim that "trade secrets" were floating all over, and push it as a mean to attack potential rivals. And, if is it is claimed that algorithms were stolen and the code paraphrased, it might be hard to prove one way or the other (which should help on the defendant, but in practice the thing often work out who knows).
Slashdot Mirror
Because the wonder becomes obsolete in the default version -- and many of use don't like having all the walls disappear from out cities at once when it happens. (Nothing like having a depended upon defence disappear in the middle of a war, with no time to rebuild and not enough moneyt to replace it....)
A statistics or research design teacher would have taught you to show your N as well....
Most of the things they talk about have *NOTHING* to do with science, and thus nothing to do with understanding science. In fact, they are mostly maters of religion, to which science is irrelavent.
If they want to know about people's understanding of science they need to look at thier understanding of the scientific method and scientific thought, perhaps philosophy of science, not this stuff.
Perhaps asking if psychic powers are scientifically varified, etc., would provide an iderrect clue to a limitted understanding of science (and a direct sign of ignorance of current theories and data) -- but asking if they believe in them in general is irrelavent. In fact, it make me wonder if the people who designed this "research" really understood science themselves.
Practical use of technology is a good thing -- tech- DEPENDENCE is not. Any kind of true dependence is a vulnerability and and "bad" thing.
But, once I got past the title, I mostly agreed.
Robots aren't likely to take try to take over by force in the too near future, nor will they have too. Lazy and geedy humans are more likely to put them in control so they can bask in their custodial care and waiste away in indulgence.
Also, the (largely forgoten) popular fear of the '80's about all the jobs going to machines is really comming true now. E.g., replacing five $30k/year employees with a computer and $60k/year technician may be good for the one technician/programer/whatever and for the company, but creates a net loss of four jobs for humans. This is tempting and helpful (at least in the short term) for those at the top, but woah to the population at large. This is the real robot take-over, and its happening NOW! Yet, ironically, my observation is that over use of over priced technology isn't even good in the long run, whatever the sales pitches may say.
I don't particularly like books -- I've given over half of mine away over the last year just to be rid of them. They are just a nessissary evil to aquire information.
But e-Books are much worse. My eyes can't take staring at a screan all that time -- I even print long e-mails (if they are too important to delete) rather than have to read them online -- and other thing too, hard to label, make read off a screan especially annoying. Not to mention price problems, loaning problems, etc. Anything other than a purely refference work (like an encyclopedia or dictionary) is something I won't be looking at on screan! (Of course, I don't like reading to begin with.)
I saw originals movies when they were re-aired on TV years ago. That Planet of the Apes had a good plot with thought and irony.
The trailors to this one were enough to disturb me. They seemed to shift the focus all on to "action," violent and otherwise; like many movies of the last decade or so, the trailor reminded me of the beginning of the Transformers cartoon, lots of stuff zooming around with flashes of violence. It was as though the the plot and implications had been thrown-out and all the influence placed on flashy effects and "exciting" action (that has become so cliche as to not to excite anyon anymore). OK, maybe the concept is well known, but if nothing is added to that.... it is though the these movies are being produced for (and often by) a culture that has been conditioned to find fast action and flashy effects as *THE* basis of enjoyment, yet is so habituated to them that they can never have enough or be really satisfied (so just lay it on more and more, "when everything feels like the movies").
The original was not an action movie, it had no hint of that style, and I think no intention of it. It was a story with a plot, a lot of points, and good use of irony. The trailors give the impression of a movie that rips of the Planet of the Apes name and setting to make proffiteering sequal, and cheapnes the whole idea in the process.
The trailors sold me on NOT seeing this moving long ago.
I have several password types of my own:
I, at least, find this a practical system, there being a time and a place for all levels of goodness.
I learned some time ago that the "easy to upgrade" line so often attributed to Linux was not quite true. This RPM won't install until you get two more, each of which also have a couple requiremnet, and so on, until your practically upgrading the whole system (and spending all week combing the internet for the files) -- and its usually not long until something is required that just doesn't work or can't be found.
So, I went to compiling from source so my binaries and libraries would be generally compatible -- that way I only needed four other packages to upgrade one....
Putting code in libraries for re-use sounds really good until you realize just how interdependent everything has gotten.
My question is not "can it be done?" but (environmentally speaking) " should it be done?" Think of all the mile of nature destroyed on our already over-crowding planet. Some of the solution, of course, may involve population (which may "solve" itself with disease), but in mean time, perhap better plan would be more efficiency / less waste. It may be that this (alone) is not the best way -- but if it were efficient it might be help. And using on the massive wasteland of city and suburban roof tops might just be a good idea.
Of course, I suppose ecconomics could get in the way (damn if I don't hate captitalism and suspect its the best we can hope for at the same time).... :(
See! Bush doesn't need to invest in building it as a weapon -- he can just hirer a good cracker!
So many phrases are implicit in the English language, and even more (and more complex) phrases become implicit with cutlure and subject related effect, that I'm not surprised more "cheaters" were not identified. Frankly, I find the procedure to sound like a lazy way around both judge and some reasonable variation of a due process -- and the results extremely dubius besides.
All I can say is I find this assessment hard to believe, not only of M$, but of companies in general. Companies are driven by the greed of those few at the top and powered by the effort of the exploited many at the bottom (most of whom have to worry too much about survival for luxuries like "ethics"). If nothing else, the time cruch theory hold -- but hell, I'm not sure there is a truly valid way to define theft in intellectual "property" [sic].
WOW!!!
You mean there is disagreement, perhaps even non-conformity on the web! I thought, from reading posts here and in other places, that all forms for disagreement, nonconforminity, honest misunderstanding, and other such evil had all been eradicated from the 'net, and only the trolls remained prevent perfect concessus! :P
Gee, nice to hear, actually....
I love KDE, but I found one thing very disturbing with KDE 2.0. Basically it was this:
Get the idea. With all the processes spawned graphically and named the same when something does go wrong, there is no way to know what to kill!
I do wonder what ever possed them to design it like that....
Oh well, I hope that someone will get it and change it in the future, or that 2.1 has that as an improvement.
A "standard" that changes ever two minutes (as the HTML standard, for example, has), is not a standard, its a bad joke. Standards should be to foster consistency, not to redefine everything for every fad and frivelous whim.
I'd like to see a movement that was not only minimalistic, but blatantly rebelled against all the over complicated nuances of the "standards" -- all the idiocy added to HTML, which should be a simple language for marking up text with hyperlinks, and a few images and basic formatting -- and should be efficient, to.
What ever happened to "Best Viewed with a Budgie"?
A program change PS to a graphics format (like a virtual printer, substitutes *.bmp or *.xpm pixels for printer dots) would be handy -- does one exist?
(Does anyone want to make one?)
Changing any other (graphics) format would then be simple as [load] and [save-as] with any graphics editor.
Actually, SimCity (2000, anyway) is very free market; unlike LinCity (where players actually build "mills" etc.), the player merely zones land which and hopes for something good to pop up. City planning, deciding on ordinances, etc., is part of the game, along with zoning land, all things typical of democrat municipalities at least in the U.S.
But, if it were possible to all have the sims making free choices by AI, and have them act on their own, what would be left for the player to do? You could say the LEGO teaches authoritarianism, after all, kids (or others) decide what to build, and controls the whole world of the LEGO people, even their actions! But, its a toy, its creative, and its fun. Similar, Maxis prefers the term "Software Toys" for Sim-anything, because it is a toy, for users to manipulate toward whatever goal is wanted, whether size, a theme, beauty, etc.
Personally, I think seeing "teaching [bad-thing-X]" in such games as a sign of taking things way too seriously.
Back to the orignal point: Sim*, like Lego, is generally non-zero; you cuold, based on your attitude, make it otherwise, but as long as you are happy with it.
Terrorist's, yes, they would probably smuggle a bomb is, or build it locally, or use something else instead. But "rogue states" are bound to use any weapon that any other state would use - though they may use terrorist in addition to more standard weapons.
In a way, though, I am bothered by the prevalence of the term "rogue states." Keeping weapons for defence against agressive states seems to be an absolutely nessicary evil. But "rogue" is an awfully vague term, and gives the impression it could also be an excuse to violate the soverenty of peacefully non-conformist countries as well.
"Nosferatu" is a German corruption of a Rommanian word (unless I've been badly misinformed); much as Trasylvania is in Rommanian, and the legend was brought from that general region of eastern Europe.
I can't find my German dictionary, but "Utarefson" ("Nosferatu" backward) doesn't look very German. Die would be toten, and dead is very similar, so I don't think so. It seems odd that anyone would bother playing such spelling trick in this case anyway, though my German is not good enough to be sure what the word for "Undead" would be.
AIDS is still much more common in gay men, but straight people can get it. Last I heard it was rising fastest in straight women, though that could have a relative increase, thus inflated by the that more men have it already.
BTW: "Nosferatu" does not literally mean "vampire" (at least not originally), but is derived from a word for "disease carrier," and was a title vampires shared with others -- though it was not specifically aimed at sexual diseases. Evil spirits and the walking dead make great explanations for plagues (think of the mideveal black death). Note also that garlic has some antivirulent properties, and also wards off vampires (coincidence, maybe, but maybe a part of the myths development).
Its even better (or worse, if you a corporate), in that a sort of poetic justice may develop (at least to an extent): Industry may be kicking its own ass by being slow to adapt to open source.
Look at all the open source desktop stuff being developed, even to the level of the non-expert. KDE with KOffice, the Gnome people, etc. Some of this may have developed anyway, due to "market forces" (free-as-in-beer, or cheap-as-in-distro, can be important to those of us who are far from being rich), but the delay in development of many types of software by proprietary vendors I'm sure sped this up. Even now, with all the hype and several major corporations talking Linux, many programs are not available for Linux -- I'd like to see (perhaps start, if I'm ever up to it) open source answers to EndNote and SPSS or SAS. And how much influence might the OS requirements on Civization contributed to FreeCiv getting under way? By the time the "industry" catchs up with GNU et al., they may find the market for much other than hardware drivers gone, having passed them by long ago.
(I also found it interresting the way the artical made a big deal of the Copyright -- clearly everyone posting here takes the implications of the GPL for granted, I'm not sure this mainstream media commentator fully grasped that, instead talking only of stering and direction, as though forking were a foreign concept.)
I, for one, am bothered by the very fact they sold their stock as "Linux" - my mother saw something about "Linux" stocks on the news, and ever since I can't get her to understand Linux per se is niether a company nor owned / produced by any particular company. Its misleading, and that is enough to concern me.
No, this is not a joke or a troll, I think s domain or ".-" would be a good idea.
The idea in this is that an official place for use on local intranets, like the "hobbyist" IPs (e.g., 10.x.x.x) in IPv4. And what would be better than a single character that doesn't stand for anything on its own? Of course, people could do this on there own with a character not likely to be so used -- but an officially agreed upon standard would still be a good idea. After all, I could make up a local domain, like .wyrdonia that I think no-one is using -- but recklessly making up domains is bound to cause confusion when some dweeb picks something simple this is in internet use; adding a recognized TL-non-Domain ("wyrdonia.-") would make it safe. (If someone wanted more than one local domain, thy could just create secondaries, of course.)
I see a real danger in the possibility that manipulative and/or paranoid microsoft officials might try to proclaim unrelated open source project to this. Basically, that there are bound to be accidental duplication, at least in terms of superficial similarities, for someone to claim that a piece of code was based in some way on the stolen source. With the ability to insight ignorant official and the public about dangerout "hackers" it would almost surprise me someone didn't try to claim that "trade secrets" were floating all over, and push it as a mean to attack potential rivals. And, if is it is claimed that algorithms were stolen and the code paraphrased, it might be hard to prove one way or the other (which should help on the defendant, but in practice the thing often work out who knows).