~292 billion years from now will be ~288 billion years after the sun expands to Earth's radius. So, we will need to have migrated away from where we are now if those computers are to continue computing.
It would make for an interesting botnet, wouldn't it? Just run a process on fifty or sixty million machines whose only task is to crawl the Web. Wouldn't even need to use a noticeable amount of bandwidth or CPU time. Just sit in the background hitting sites.
Not following any sort of Slashdot mindherd here or anything; I'm following the Constitution. Yes, I am sure, and agree with your other child post that spreading falsehoods are dealt with by other laws, and not at all effectively by censorship.
It's odd to me that a, basically, "stop communicating here" post was rated Insightful. I think there's more insight in the OP's post, especially the parts about donating to the EFF and ACLU. That communication can change people's behavior for the better. I suppose mr1911's communication can also change people's behavior, but generally when communication is reduced, so is effectiveness.
What's really amusing is I expect the new kids to come back to email, and then they and I can communicate. It's funny how some things skip a generation.
Yeah, okay, now I understand a little better what you were trying to say in the other thread. However, I still am having difficulty understanding you: are you saying that, now, after she has died, she is a schoolteacher in some netherworld flight of fantasy of yours which is similar to a literary creation of hers? (Also, I'm not sure how you interpreted my response as my thinking that you thought Ayn Rand was wealthy. Again, as I said in the previous response, your thought process seems randomized; but, perhaps, I'm missing an essential ingredient; college was fun.) (Finally, I have no way of interpreting your responses, other than that you were being intentionally confusing: you responded to a post with "I heard she...", when the only female in your parent post was Ayn Rand (and referenced in the PS; the bulk of the post was discussing Milton Friedman). Then you state that you weren't talking about her; you were talking about a character of hers, in a creation of hers. That character, and that creation, were not mentioned in the parent. Do you have any idea that you're being confusing, or is this The New Math?)
Your thought process seems random. I am not interested in seeking approval from dead entities. If you've found some internal inconsistency in my logic, please point it out. See my response to the other response to the post you responded to (i.e., this) for why I maintain that your acceptance of Obama's throwing away taxpayer dollars is similar to the broken window fallacy. I agree that thermodynamics plays a part, but Obama destroys value faster. I would prefer that my roads be fixed by local taxes.
Perhaps. I was thinking more along the lines of the further-up parent stating that we actually got something from Obama's stimulus. In fact, I perceive Obama's stimulus as exactly like breaking windows, especially the part about destroying perfectly good cars at taxpayer expense.
The other major topic of this particular thread was the WPA, and whether that was actually a net benefit, or as was suggested caused the depression to last longer -- again, seeming to very effectively model the idea of breaking windows to increase the global economy: the WPA may have helped some localities, but it (can be argued that it) caused the national depression to last significantly longer.
So, my initial parent stating, and I paraphrase, "it's okay to spend tax dollars on the roads near me even if those dollars aren't quite spent efficiently, in order that my wheels don't fall off" sounds, to me, a lot like breaking windows: it's okay if far more tax dollars are thrown at this problem than private dollars would be if this were an issue on private property, and my original parent is fine with this waste of tax dollars. Hence, broken window fallacy. Please prove me wrong? (I'm serious, I'm not just picking a fight, I want to understand what I don't understand, if that's actually the case.)
Sorry for not being clear; it wasn't taxes that I was decrying, it was central banking and their fractional reserve lending, and its ability to create money out of thin air, and its requirement to pay back more money than was created, that makes satisfying our debt mathematically impossible. I like your ideas about "waiting it out" but I don't think they'll work in practice. The last time the USA had zero debt was 1835. Surprisingly enough, we've pretty much had constant centralized banking since then.
We need a GPL type universal list of shit that's unethical.
Your idea cries out for a "business search engine" as well, so you could say "I want to find a business in my area for 'drycleaning' which supports 'X' and 'Y', and is against 'Z'" etc -- allowing one to much, much more effectively "put one's money where one's mouth is."
Any luddite who ever thought otherwise clearly had their head stuck somewhere other than in reality.
Exactly: "I don't want my computing device to actually compute; I just want it to serve me my games!" (Or stories, to go back a generation or two, or three or four if the story is without pictures.)
I have said it before and I will say it again: the Windows ecosystem would be far more secure if Microsoft provided a means for 3rd party software companies to utilize the Windows update mechanism for patch installation (yes, I know that patches can be pushed out by WSUS, but what about the millions of home computers and windows machines in SMEs that don't have a WSUS server setup?
What do you mean by "SMEs"? Because I understand "SME" to mean "Subject Matter Expert", and that doesn't parse. Did you mean "SMBs"? ("Small-to-Medium-sized Businesses.") That said, I completely agree with your premise: Adobe (ad nauseum) should shut the fuck up about updates, and use the Critical Update Notification Tool, or whatever it is more-politically-correctly called these days.
The fact that we treat it as 3/4 of the people get a job and the other quarter starve is just sickening to me. Even more so when the profits of the work end up in the same wealthy 1% or so either way.
If the 1% wasn't stealing the resources via purchased legislation, there would be at least 40 hours per person per week of beneficial labor.
Slashdot Mirror
~292 billion years from now will be ~288 billion years after the sun expands to Earth's radius. So, we will need to have migrated away from where we are now if those computers are to continue computing.
While we're on the subject of Brians, I'd like to also know what would Brian Boitano do? (And, 'ello, Bruce.)
All this time, and I just now realized that the line is also an ambiguous number-of-limbs joke, as well...
"My girlfriend sleeps above the covers -- three feet above the covers!"
It would make for an interesting botnet, wouldn't it? Just run a process on fifty or sixty million machines whose only task is to crawl the Web. Wouldn't even need to use a noticeable amount of bandwidth or CPU time. Just sit in the background hitting sites.
You could call it "TrackTHIS!".
Or, you could call it Google.
Not following any sort of Slashdot mindherd here or anything; I'm following the Constitution. Yes, I am sure, and agree with your other child post that spreading falsehoods are dealt with by other laws, and not at all effectively by censorship.
It's odd to me that a, basically, "stop communicating here" post was rated Insightful. I think there's more insight in the OP's post, especially the parts about donating to the EFF and ACLU. That communication can change people's behavior for the better. I suppose mr1911's communication can also change people's behavior, but generally when communication is reduced, so is effectiveness.
What's really amusing is I expect the new kids to come back to email, and then they and I can communicate. It's funny how some things skip a generation.
Yeah, okay, now I understand a little better what you were trying to say in the other thread. However, I still am having difficulty understanding you: are you saying that, now, after she has died, she is a schoolteacher in some netherworld flight of fantasy of yours which is similar to a literary creation of hers? (Also, I'm not sure how you interpreted my response as my thinking that you thought Ayn Rand was wealthy. Again, as I said in the previous response, your thought process seems randomized; but, perhaps, I'm missing an essential ingredient; college was fun.) (Finally, I have no way of interpreting your responses, other than that you were being intentionally confusing: you responded to a post with "I heard she...", when the only female in your parent post was Ayn Rand (and referenced in the PS; the bulk of the post was discussing Milton Friedman). Then you state that you weren't talking about her; you were talking about a character of hers, in a creation of hers. That character, and that creation, were not mentioned in the parent. Do you have any idea that you're being confusing, or is this The New Math?)
Automate agreement acceptance (and alliterate!).
Your thought process seems random. I am not interested in seeking approval from dead entities. If you've found some internal inconsistency in my logic, please point it out. See my response to the other response to the post you responded to (i.e., this) for why I maintain that your acceptance of Obama's throwing away taxpayer dollars is similar to the broken window fallacy. I agree that thermodynamics plays a part, but Obama destroys value faster. I would prefer that my roads be fixed by local taxes.
Perhaps. I was thinking more along the lines of the further-up parent stating that we actually got something from Obama's stimulus. In fact, I perceive Obama's stimulus as exactly like breaking windows, especially the part about destroying perfectly good cars at taxpayer expense.
The other major topic of this particular thread was the WPA, and whether that was actually a net benefit, or as was suggested caused the depression to last longer -- again, seeming to very effectively model the idea of breaking windows to increase the global economy: the WPA may have helped some localities, but it (can be argued that it) caused the national depression to last significantly longer.
So, my initial parent stating, and I paraphrase, "it's okay to spend tax dollars on the roads near me even if those dollars aren't quite spent efficiently, in order that my wheels don't fall off" sounds, to me, a lot like breaking windows: it's okay if far more tax dollars are thrown at this problem than private dollars would be if this were an issue on private property, and my original parent is fine with this waste of tax dollars. Hence, broken window fallacy. Please prove me wrong? (I'm serious, I'm not just picking a fight, I want to understand what I don't understand, if that's actually the case.)
New Occupy NSA[1] slogan: "I am the grey goo!"
[1] -- Because that's where Jake 2.0 worked, of course.
Sorry for not being clear; it wasn't taxes that I was decrying, it was central banking and their fractional reserve lending, and its ability to create money out of thin air, and its requirement to pay back more money than was created, that makes satisfying our debt mathematically impossible. I like your ideas about "waiting it out" but I don't think they'll work in practice. The last time the USA had zero debt was 1835. Surprisingly enough, we've pretty much had constant centralized banking since then.
FYI, that photo was inspired by (but definitely not taken from!) an old Family Guy episode.
So there is no type of content that you would make illegal to distribute or possess?
Agreed. I do not consider any content to be more harmful than the act of censoring it.
Well, on the other hand, they managed to keep it flying for a year, which must say something positive about their batteries.
Did you orgasm as you finished writing that?
Why do you ask? Do your fingers double as keyboard-sensitive erotic zones, also?
Have you ever tried to open a back account without one?
I'd ask Dr. Bob.
We need a GPL type universal list of shit that's unethical.
Your idea cries out for a "business search engine" as well, so you could say "I want to find a business in my area for 'drycleaning' which supports 'X' and 'Y', and is against 'Z'" etc -- allowing one to much, much more effectively "put one's money where one's mouth is."
Any luddite who ever thought otherwise clearly had their head stuck somewhere other than in reality.
Exactly: "I don't want my computing device to actually compute; I just want it to serve me my games!" (Or stories, to go back a generation or two, or three or four if the story is without pictures.)
"Hand plowing jobs" are not nearly as delicious as they sound. (Re: Homer Simpson on going cold turkey.)
I have said it before and I will say it again: the Windows ecosystem would be far more secure if Microsoft provided a means for 3rd party software companies to utilize the Windows update mechanism for patch installation (yes, I know that patches can be pushed out by WSUS, but what about the millions of home computers and windows machines in SMEs that don't have a WSUS server setup?
What do you mean by "SMEs"? Because I understand "SME" to mean "Subject Matter Expert", and that doesn't parse. Did you mean "SMBs"? ("Small-to-Medium-sized Businesses.") That said, I completely agree with your premise: Adobe (ad nauseum) should shut the fuck up about updates, and use the Critical Update Notification Tool, or whatever it is more-politically-correctly called these days.
I'm likely going to be laughing at odd moments all day.
And this is different how?
The fact that we treat it as 3/4 of the people get a job and the other quarter starve is just sickening to me. Even more so when the profits of the work end up in the same wealthy 1% or so either way.
If the 1% wasn't stealing the resources via purchased legislation, there would be at least 40 hours per person per week of beneficial labor.