I really don't think I'm completely unreasonable getting confused by the subject, since I'm still not quite sure what you mean by it. But, whatever works for you.
When the voting process begins, the machine prints a report saying there is no vote saved. At the end, it prints a couple of reports saying how many voter where exprected, how many came to vote and it gives the *result* of the election for that specific machine.
So why doesn't it print a ballot for each voter, which would give you the ability to do a recount if fraud is suspected?
I also have no problem criminalizing conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.
What does that have to do with "sedition"? Sedition means any speech that the government can construe as being "intended to bring down the established order", which is trivially and frequently interpreted to include pretty much any dissenting voice. Conspiracy requires a means, a motive, and actual progress (generally through some kind of overt act) towards accomplishing the goal. Conspiracy is also a covert act, you don't engage in conspiracy by posting blogs or handbills, or speaking on television, radio, or in the town square.
Conspiracy has nothing to do with this arrest. This is all about the abuses of sedition laws, whether in Malaysia in 2008 or in the United States in 1789.
If the Malaysian govenrment wants to crack down on "sedition", being a "blogger" is completely irrelevant to the crackdown question. The operative factor is the sedition, not the blogging.
Virtualization is also the way to go to save power. Fewer servers.
Mostly because so many people use a desktop operating system for server work, and so have to use virtualization to get role and security separation between applications. I'm not saying that there isn't a point to virtualization on non-Windows platforms, but it's primarily Windows single-instance-per-computer service model that's driving virtualization.
A multiuser model, where you run multiple instances of an application over a single kernel, is much more efficient than virtual servers. It does require a modest amount of extra configuration to use multiple configuration files, directory trees, or chroot or jailed environments (depending on how well the application is written, and how much security separation you need), but if it reduces the number of servers you need isn't it worth it?
Suspend saves the state of the system to hard disk, which reduces the boot time greatly and allows the system to be shut down. Sleeping continues to draw a small amount of power, between 1 and 3 watts, even though the system appears to be inactive. By comparison, Suspend draws less than 1 watt. Even over the course of a year, this difference is probably negligible.
I though "suspend to disk" and "hibernate" were synonyms. A suspended computer shouldn't draw any more power than a computer that's turned off, because a suspended computer is off: you can pull AC and battery, ship it to Patagonia, plug it back in again, boot it from the hibernate image, and it shouldn't be able to tell it hadn't been on power the whole time.
Or is there some third level of "sleep" they're talking about here?
So, for example, a society that systematically kills thousands of its own citizens should be left to do that in peace, without raising a voice in protest? Should we turn a blind eye to members of that society who call out against it, and are jailed or tortured or even killed as a result? Or should we try to change it, even if only by raising our voices in common protest? Should even that small abandonment of cultural relativism (because nothing more than that is happening here) be considered unacceptable?
I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm inciting your neighbors to riot, or urging them to lynch you, or advocating election fraud.
If my neighbors are likely to riot, or lynch me, then keeping you from calling on them to won't help. if they already hate me enough to act, then they will likely act regardless. It wasn't sedition that ignited the South Central riots, it was the voice of authority.
Advocating election fraud could only strengthen the voting process, by providing hard evidence that flaws in the voting process will be exploited if they're not fixed.
The person who wrote it must not be able to conceive of the great pain and suffering that social disorder can bring.
Or has more faith in the stability of society. Perhaps I should have written "A society that can not survive dissent will not survive". The conditions that make dissent (however expressed) so prevalent and violent that it threatens the fabric of society are themselves fatal, and if not changed will bring about a collapse.
In that environment, permitting the expression of dissent, including "seditious speech", is probably the only way to ensure that those conditions WILL change. Because when you suppress speech you leave dissent no channel but violence... and violence does not lead to a more stable society.
If the society can survive the suppression of dissent, then it can equally well survive the dissent. Speech will not bring a society down, and suppressing speech will only make it weaker.
The distinction between dissent and sedition is undetectable outside the mind of the person expressing dissent or engaging in sedition. It is, at most, a difference in degree, not kind, unless one takes a position that any call to action is seditious speech rather than an expression of dissent.
Neither dissent nor sedition is action. If someone cries "kill whitey" but nobody takes action, then where is the crime? If they do, then the crime is in the action. If merely calling for action inevitably leads to action, then that society is either going to change so it no longer tolerates the conditions that make that possible, or it will not survive.
No Hazard (White Zone) - 0 - The likelihood of a collision is zero, or is so low as to be effectively zero. Also applies to small objects such as meteors and bodies that burn up in the atmosphere as well as infrequent meteorite falls that rarely cause damage.
The hardware apparently doesn't include a printer, so there's no paper ballot. And the voting software itself isn't open. The fact that the underlying OS is Linux is almost irrelevant.
I don't see any reason why sedition on a blog should be treated any differently from sedition on a streetcorner or a radio program or a billboard or a secret revolutionary committee meeting
I agree. If a society can't survive dissent it shouldn't survive. None of these should be suppressed.
You can always keep your BluRay player offline, and not have it connected to the Internet.
You can always do the equivalent things that people who have a clue do to keep from getting phished, stalked, infected, or otherwise screwed up by badly designed security models in other spheres, from avoiding IE to turning off automatic image loading in email... but the people who most need protection won't.
We don't see event horizons directly, either... we just have indirect observations of X-ray sources (like Cygnus X-1) that are best explained, under the current theories, as black holes. Current theories imply that it might be possible to create a naked singularity, but that doesn't mean that they imply such things exist... and the only tests we can do on them are theoretical.
So it seems like Penrose is making a much stronger statement than is supported by evidence.
Current theories imply that it may be possible for intelligence to be created or arise spontaneously, but we're a long way from figuring out exactly how, and Penrose takes that to imply that AI is a pipe dream. Despite the existence proof behind his own eyes. Again, his articles on AI seem to make a far stronger statement than is supported by evidence.
This doesn't mean he's an idiot, but it does imply there may be a significant bias in his works.
Since the most common model for the creation of a naked singularity involves a rapidly spinning black hole, I fail to understand why there should be any expectation that colliding two black holes head-on would have that effect. This sounds like pseudo-science... "look, something that wasn't expected to create a naked singularity doesn't seem to do that in a simulation, so they can't exist!"
Just creating the membranes would produce the equivalent of an artificial zombie cell, with no self-repair mechanisms and no way to replace them. A battery like this would be subject to attack by the immune system and by bacteria in the body, and likely "rot" in no time. Without the whole mechanism of a living cell to sustain it... without the "brain" of the cell... it would need to be sealed and unable to take advantage of the bodies supply of ATP.
Better to see if you can enhance human cells, maybe even the recipient's own cells, to do the job.
Slashdot Mirror
An overt act like going out on a streetcorner and inciting people, for example?
That would generally be "incitement to riot". For "conspiracy" it would be more like buying fuel oil and fertilizer.
It's also not about blogging.
No, it's about dissent. Who's making it about blogging?
Um, OK.
I really don't think I'm completely unreasonable getting confused by the subject, since I'm still not quite sure what you mean by it. But, whatever works for you.
When the voting process begins, the machine prints a report saying there is no vote saved. At the end, it prints a couple of reports saying how many voter where exprected, how many came to vote and it gives the *result* of the election for that specific machine.
So why doesn't it print a ballot for each voter, which would give you the ability to do a recount if fraud is suspected?
I also have no problem criminalizing conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.
What does that have to do with "sedition"? Sedition means any speech that the government can construe as being "intended to bring down the established order", which is trivially and frequently interpreted to include pretty much any dissenting voice. Conspiracy requires a means, a motive, and actual progress (generally through some kind of overt act) towards accomplishing the goal. Conspiracy is also a covert act, you don't engage in conspiracy by posting blogs or handbills, or speaking on television, radio, or in the town square.
Conspiracy has nothing to do with this arrest. This is all about the abuses of sedition laws, whether in Malaysia in 2008 or in the United States in 1789.
If the Malaysian govenrment wants to crack down on "sedition", being a "blogger" is completely irrelevant to the crackdown question. The operative factor is the sedition, not the blogging.
So how exactly does it "work for you" then?
Virtualization is also the way to go to save power. Fewer servers.
Mostly because so many people use a desktop operating system for server work, and so have to use virtualization to get role and security separation between applications. I'm not saying that there isn't a point to virtualization on non-Windows platforms, but it's primarily Windows single-instance-per-computer service model that's driving virtualization.
A multiuser model, where you run multiple instances of an application over a single kernel, is much more efficient than virtual servers. It does require a modest amount of extra configuration to use multiple configuration files, directory trees, or chroot or jailed environments (depending on how well the application is written, and how much security separation you need), but if it reduces the number of servers you need isn't it worth it?
Suspend saves the state of the system to hard disk, which reduces the boot time greatly and allows the system to be shut down. Sleeping continues to draw a small amount of power, between 1 and 3 watts, even though the system appears to be inactive. By comparison, Suspend draws less than 1 watt. Even over the course of a year, this difference is probably negligible.
I though "suspend to disk" and "hibernate" were synonyms. A suspended computer shouldn't draw any more power than a computer that's turned off, because a suspended computer is off: you can pull AC and battery, ship it to Patagonia, plug it back in again, boot it from the hibernate image, and it shouldn't be able to tell it hadn't been on power the whole time.
Or is there some third level of "sleep" they're talking about here?
I see your sarcasm, but it works for ARM and MIPS.
And DEC?
My response remains the same. The fact that it happened to a blogger doesn't change the fact that it's unacceptable.
So, for example, a society that systematically kills thousands of its own citizens should be left to do that in peace, without raising a voice in protest? Should we turn a blind eye to members of that society who call out against it, and are jailed or tortured or even killed as a result? Or should we try to change it, even if only by raising our voices in common protest? Should even that small abandonment of cultural relativism (because nothing more than that is happening here) be considered unacceptable?
Think about it before you answer, OK?
I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm inciting your neighbors to riot, or urging them to lynch you, or advocating election fraud.
If my neighbors are likely to riot, or lynch me, then keeping you from calling on them to won't help. if they already hate me enough to act, then they will likely act regardless. It wasn't sedition that ignited the South Central riots, it was the voice of authority.
Advocating election fraud could only strengthen the voting process, by providing hard evidence that flaws in the voting process will be exploited if they're not fixed.
The person who wrote it must not be able to conceive of the great pain and suffering that social disorder can bring.
Or has more faith in the stability of society. Perhaps I should have written "A society that can not survive dissent will not survive". The conditions that make dissent (however expressed) so prevalent and violent that it threatens the fabric of society are themselves fatal, and if not changed will bring about a collapse.
In that environment, permitting the expression of dissent, including "seditious speech", is probably the only way to ensure that those conditions WILL change. Because when you suppress speech you leave dissent no channel but violence... and violence does not lead to a more stable society.
If the society can survive the suppression of dissent, then it can equally well survive the dissent. Speech will not bring a society down, and suppressing speech will only make it weaker.
Dissent and sedition are two separate things.
The distinction between dissent and sedition is undetectable outside the mind of the person expressing dissent or engaging in sedition. It is, at most, a difference in degree, not kind, unless one takes a position that any call to action is seditious speech rather than an expression of dissent.
Neither dissent nor sedition is action. If someone cries "kill whitey" but nobody takes action, then where is the crime? If they do, then the crime is in the action. If merely calling for action inevitably leads to action, then that society is either going to change so it no longer tolerates the conditions that make that possible, or it will not survive.
Looks like a Torino Zero event:
The hardware apparently doesn't include a printer, so there's no paper ballot. And the voting software itself isn't open. The fact that the underlying OS is Linux is almost irrelevant.
I don't see any reason why sedition on a blog should be treated any differently from sedition on a streetcorner or a radio program or a billboard or a secret revolutionary committee meeting
I agree. If a society can't survive dissent it shouldn't survive. None of these should be suppressed.
Warner Brothers
Yakko, Wakko (and Dot) would never have anything to do with THOSE people!
I saw it on Star Trek, it must be true!
You can always keep your BluRay player offline, and not have it connected to the Internet.
You can always do the equivalent things that people who have a clue do to keep from getting phished, stalked, infected, or otherwise screwed up by badly designed security models in other spheres, from avoiding IE to turning off automatic image loading in email... but the people who most need protection won't.
No, that's "science journalism" (ok, pretty much the same as psuedo-science).
Speaking of spin. :) :) :)
We don't see event horizons directly, either... we just have indirect observations of X-ray sources (like Cygnus X-1) that are best explained, under the current theories, as black holes. Current theories imply that it might be possible to create a naked singularity, but that doesn't mean that they imply such things exist... and the only tests we can do on them are theoretical.
So it seems like Penrose is making a much stronger statement than is supported by evidence.
Current theories imply that it may be possible for intelligence to be created or arise spontaneously, but we're a long way from figuring out exactly how, and Penrose takes that to imply that AI is a pipe dream. Despite the existence proof behind his own eyes. Again, his articles on AI seem to make a far stronger statement than is supported by evidence.
This doesn't mean he's an idiot, but it does imply there may be a significant bias in his works.
Since the most common model for the creation of a naked singularity involves a rapidly spinning black hole, I fail to understand why there should be any expectation that colliding two black holes head-on would have that effect. This sounds like pseudo-science... "look, something that wasn't expected to create a naked singularity doesn't seem to do that in a simulation, so they can't exist!"
Thank you for repeating my first bullet as if I had somehow missed that point.
A license only effect redistribution.
And derived works.
Doh. Obviously zombie cells were eating my brains when I wrote that bit.
Just creating the membranes would produce the equivalent of an artificial zombie cell, with no self-repair mechanisms and no way to replace them. A battery like this would be subject to attack by the immune system and by bacteria in the body, and likely "rot" in no time. Without the whole mechanism of a living cell to sustain it ... without the "brain" of the cell... it would need to be sealed and unable to take advantage of the bodies supply of ATP.
Better to see if you can enhance human cells, maybe even the recipient's own cells, to do the job.