You ARE showing your age:) Say, do you remember when Scorched Earth was still called Bombs and it had that bug where a shot at 800 power would tunnel through dirt indefinately?
During odd minor number releases you add features. During even minor number releases you only fix bugs. Not every OSS project uses this model but a huge number do.
I've installed P2P file sharing software. I've used it to illegally download files. But this is not stealling. No matter how often I download a file the original creater (or the copyright holder, if they are not one and the same) still has the full use of this file. But when someone takes up disk space, uses up CPU time and hogs bandwidth on my computer they are depleting resources which I can no longer fully use. That's the difference between the two.
Re:One simple reason why it won't work:
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2
Q: What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
A: Trilingual.
Q: What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
A: Bilingual.
Q: What do you call someone who speaks one language?
A: American.
Not all Europeans are polyglots but a huge number are. Your hypothetical Parisian likely speaks German. If not they probably speak English and could get a job in Germany on that.
It may be easier to move from Detroit to Dallas but it's not much more difficult to move from Paris to Berlin.
You can always protect yourself against this type
of invasion by blocking the line of site between
the satelite and whatever it's trying to look at.
But think of this. As more and more companies allow private citizans to access this information, it will be harder and harder to police what they are looking at and who they are selling the images too.
In the US the major media networks have agreed not to show any images of dead Afghanis, and the government bought all the Afghanistan images from Space Imaging. Do you think it would make a difference if American citizens could see what was happening at groud level there?
Why do so many people seem to think that not attacking Afghanistan means "doing nothing"?
We have alot of options besides engaging in inapropriate military action.
Why inapropriate? Donald Rumsfeld said that we're unlikely to catch Bin Laden. Many members of the Taliban are no longer in the Taliban and will never be caught. Besides all of these peopl already invaded Afghanistan. Neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban are Afghani. We are bombing innocent civilians who happened to have the misfortune of being invaded by people who attacked the US as well.
Check our swarm http://www.swarm.org
It's a toolkit for objective C which facilitates
the creation of agent based simulations.
The idea is that you can create sets of agents
which have individual charectaristics and maintain
individual state.
You could easily use this to create units which
have operational parameters but can still be given
orders.
It's also pretty easy to integrate this with genetic AIs.
Then you could have groups "teach" new members stuff they've learned. Since groups with high attrition rates wouldn't have as much knowledge to pass on their (presumably faulty) tactics wouldn't get passed on much. But successful groups would spread their knowledge to other members/groups.
1) My roomate does freelance fact checking for major print publications sometimes. She's very carful about her job but alot of her coworkers aren't.
2) Have you seen the headlines that read "Talibam!" or "Kabulseye!"?
Also this doesn't address one of the major flaws of main stream media. It's not that they outright lie (although often they do). But that they can distort the truth by selective publication.
When the NYT gives equal coverage to 5000 peace protesters and 50 war supporters at Union Square, your average reader ends up thinking that the people assembled there were equally split between the two opinions. They didn't have to lie but they certainly weren't telling the truthe.
I actually bought 2 copies of 1/2-life. Once when it first came out and then when they released one of the expansions.
When I moved I lost both of the jewel boxes.
So I downloaded a key-generator and after a few tries I ended up with a key which worked for network play.
Furthermore, this scheme has very limited applications. How would you apply this to music, or videos, or e-books?
Given our current situation (I'll explain what I mean by that in a bit) I don't think DRM is possible.
If a publisher presents you with some content in a form that's suitable for you to use you can do whatever you want with the content afterwards.
No matter how good your encryption is and how carful you are about the keys, at some point you have to give the user the plaintext.
Of course plaintext also includes plainvideo, or plainsound, or plain.
The only way around this problem will involve massive restrictions on our freedoms.
Not the kind of restrictions that Emmanuel Goldstien gets worked up over but really serious restrictions.
If a company could controle who you talk to, who you listen to, what you're allowed to say etc. and had a realistic way of enforcing this, then they could protect their "digital rights". Otherwise they'll flounder before they even get started.
Actually I don't know why Adobe, the RIAA and their ilk even bother trying. I'm pretty sure there are formal rigerous proofs that they're doomed to failure.
I. First I will cite Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com)
Atheist: One who denies the existence of God.
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable.
Religion: (definition 4) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Faith: (definition 2.b.1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Since according to your own statement (which is also incorrect but I'll get to that later) "It's impossible to prove the non existence of something." Atheism is indeed a religion.
II. Now, on to your condescending statement about my education.
1) When I graduated from college they were still less than 2000 registered users on/.
2) I took logic in high school.
3) It is possible to prove the non existence of something (see below)
4) You misspelled college.
Collage: an artistic composition made of various materials (as paper, cloth, or wood) glued on a surface.
College: a body of clergy living together and supported by a foundation.
III. What burden of proof? I'm not arguing the existence of God I'm arguing the status of Atheism as a religion. Since this arguement rests on the non existence of a proof for the non existence of God, the burden would be on you to:
1) Prove the existence of a proof for the non existence of God. Or,
2) Dispute the definitions of Atheism, Agnosticism, Religion, or Faith as provided by Merriam-Webster.
IV. Sidharthas opinions on reincarnation are not relevant in a discussion on the status of Buddhism as a theistic religion. While I have already agreed that Buddhism (in it's original form) is non-theistic, I still maintain that Buddhism is theistic because in practice Buddha is treated as a god.
Apendix: How to prove the non existence of something.
1) Assume that something exists.
2) Show that this assumption creates a paradox.
3) Since the assumption is the only variable in the proof it must be incorrect.
Caveats: You will still have to rely on axioms, and definitions for your proof but if you aren't willing to accept those then logic pretty much goes out the window.
Example: Prove the non-existance of a triangle containing parallel edges.
1) Assume that there exists a triangle containing parallel edges.
2) The sum of the angles between those lines and the third line is 180 deg. (definition of parallel lines)
3) The remaining angle is non zero (definition of intersecting lines)
4) The sum of the angles of this triangle is not equal to 180 deg. (180 + != 180)
5) The sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. (corollary of the definition of a triangle)
6) The assumption in 1 must be false. Therefore there does not exist a triangle containing parallel sides.
Notes:
1) I left out some steps but filling them in is left as an exercise to the reader.
2) This proof assumes cartesian coordinates. In polar coordinates the sum of the angles of a triangle don't have to add up to 180 deg.
This isn't quite correct.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. The non belief in god which you were referring to is known as Agnosticism. There's a subtle distinction and most people ignore it but it's pretty important.
Agnostics believe that the existance or non-existance of god is unknowable. Most of them also believe that because of this, the actual existance or non-existance of god is irellevant too.
Atheists believe that god does not exist. The usual explanation for this is that since noone can prove the existance of god, it must be unproveable. Therefore god does not exist.
Depending on how you define religion (whichever definition you pick it's widely disputed), atheism qualifies. After all noone has ever shown the non existance of god with anything even remotely resembling a rigorous proof.
Also Budhism is is not the only exception.
Taoism, and Humanism are both non-theistic religions (at least in theory).
While Budhism is technically a non-theistic religion in practice many adherants treat the various Budhasa and Bodhisatvas as deities. They are looked to for guidance and frequently asked to intervene on the behalf of humans.
I think it may be more profitable in the long run not to set up puppet dictators in the first place. How bad of a track record does a policy have to have before we abandon it as flawed?
You mean, were we not human. We are by our natures a violent species. Observe children--the most natural of men. Observe savages. We are a brutal, bloodthirsty species. I have no doubt that the first tools we fashioned were clubs to kill our fellows. Just look at chimpanzees. While it is tempting to look at our violent bloody history and assume that war is in our nature it is a fallacy.
As far a science is concerened, it is widely known that the failure to observe an event (proglonged periods of peace in human societies) does not indicate that said event cannot or does not exist. It only indictaes that we haven't observed it yet.
On a more humanistic level, we are neither chimpanzees nor children. We have the intellect to see the horrors, and inefficiencies of war. If we are undergoing any advancement as a species surely this is one flaw worth evolving away from.
Besides anthropology, and zoology suggest that homicide (much less war) are only engaged in after a certain level of wealth is attained. While our earliest tools (and those of chimpanzees) are weapons, they are primarily for hunting other species. Killing off members of your own species just isn't profitable when you depend on them for your own survival.
That's why we need a military. That's why we need, sometimes, to fight and to kill. Because if we don't, the other guy will. The pacifist's dream--that if we don't, the other guy won't--is just that: a dream. It's a noble dream, but a dream nonetheless. I'll agree with the second part, sort of.
First of all, I'm not a pacifist, I'm a rather well trained martial artist, and I respond to attacks with levels of violence that make even rather violent people cringe.
Second, the pacifist dream is an end to violence, it does not indicate the method to achieving this goal. Most pacifists would agree that the method should be non-violent, but anyone can see that it's likely to take more than simply not being violent.
It is possible to diffuse violence before it starts. This is often quite difficult but the rewards (or rather lack of costs) are generally worth it.
- Help the Northern Alliance set up a totalitarian regime in Afghanistan.
- Bomb the hell out of them 20 years from now because yet another blowfish bit us in the ass.
Why would this surprise you? All of our presidents have been Christian. And since the attack we've been talking all kinds of trash about how god will bless us as we go about on our mission to erradicate evil.
This has sounded like a crusade from day one.
Hold on buddy. We've done plenty of killing innocents. In fact, the bombs we dropped on on Hiroshima and Nagasiki killed mostly civillians.
German military production had not moved to homes and small businesses at any point. There's no way you can manufacture any but the crudest military equipment without pretty advanced production facilities. My grandmother and great aunt narrowly avoided having to work in munitions plants in Austria at the time. Instead they got to be tram conductors. They were not manufacturig anything when bombs were falling around their homes.
Don't get me wrong now. What happened during WWII was inexcuseable. The Nazi government was an attrocious regime and the people of Germany and Austria followed along like so many armed sheep. The really sad part is that we haven't learned a damned thing from this and we seem to be embarking on exactly the same path.
What I don't understand about the groups condemning any military response is that they fail to realize that the military is fighting for their freedom. Nonsense. Who is fighting for my freedom? The troops? They're fighting because they have orders.
The generals? They're fighting to maintain their positions. Their corporate backers? They're fighting for money.
I saw an interview on Fox news about some group that believed that WW II could have been won by non-violent protests and the like. I'm sure that the axis powers would allow anti-war marches in Berlin. Anti-war marches wouldn't have stopped WWII. But then again we would never have had to have gotten involved if we hadn't been so good at financing and arming both sides of the conflict.
Our country is at war now, even if it is undeclared one. Americans should support their country during these times, even though they might not want to be at war. Bzzt. Wrong! If we were at war, president Bush would be in violation of the US constitution. He would never do that, right?
Having your own thoughts and the right to express them is one of many things that makes this country great, but there comes a time and place where you need to support your country (and military) first. So far these groups have not done anything wrong yet...I would hate to see things degrade to their status durring the Vietnam war days. Having your own thoughts and the right to express them are an illusion in this country. We've had book burnings, book bannings, and censorship galore. And now you're saying that people shouldn't express their views so that we can protect our right to express our views? This whole story is like something out of a bad Orwell knockoff.
We've been in a continual state of war readiness for 50 years now.
And telling a nation "Give up your national sovreignty or we'll kick your ass." is not looking for the most peaceful solution. This is how playground bullies behave when they want your milk money, except we've got cruise missiles.
Slashdot Mirror
You ARE showing your age :)
Say, do you remember when Scorched Earth was still called Bombs and it had that bug where a shot at 800 power would tunnel through dirt indefinately?
I'm not really sure what you mean here.
Are you referring to something specific here?
During odd minor number releases you add features.
During even minor number releases you only fix bugs.
Not every OSS project uses this model but a huge number do.
I've installed P2P file sharing software.
I've used it to illegally download files. But this is not stealling. No matter how often I download a file the original creater (or the copyright holder, if they are not one and the same) still has the full use of this file.
But when someone takes up disk space, uses up CPU time and hogs bandwidth on my computer they are depleting resources which I can no longer fully use.
That's the difference between the two.
Q: What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
A: Trilingual.
Q: What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
A: Bilingual.
Q: What do you call someone who speaks one language?
A: American.
Not all Europeans are polyglots but a huge number are. Your hypothetical Parisian likely speaks German. If not they probably speak English and could get a job in Germany on that.
It may be easier to move from Detroit to Dallas but it's not much more difficult to move from Paris to Berlin.
Well. The latest statements seem to indicate that he's no longer in Afghanistan.
It doesn't make the problem impossible but it's does make it harder.
You can always protect yourself against this type
of invasion by blocking the line of site between
the satelite and whatever it's trying to look at.
But think of this. As more and more companies allow private citizans to access this information, it will be harder and harder to police what they are looking at and who they are selling the images too.
In the US the major media networks have agreed not to show any images of dead Afghanis, and the government bought all the Afghanistan images from Space Imaging. Do you think it would make a difference if American citizens could see what was happening at groud level there?
Does anyone know of a watch that shows unix time?
Why do so many people seem to think that not attacking Afghanistan means "doing nothing"?
We have alot of options besides engaging in inapropriate military action.
Why inapropriate? Donald Rumsfeld said that we're unlikely to catch Bin Laden. Many members of the Taliban are no longer in the Taliban and will never be caught. Besides all of these peopl already invaded Afghanistan. Neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban are Afghani. We are bombing innocent civilians who happened to have the misfortune of being invaded by people who attacked the US as well.
WBAI 99.5 FM in New York just said it was flight 567.
Check our swarm http://www.swarm.org
It's a toolkit for objective C which facilitates
the creation of agent based simulations.
The idea is that you can create sets of agents
which have individual charectaristics and maintain
individual state.
You could easily use this to create units which
have operational parameters but can still be given
orders.
It's also pretty easy to integrate this with genetic AIs.
Then you could have groups "teach" new members stuff they've learned. Since groups with high attrition rates wouldn't have as much knowledge to pass on their (presumably faulty) tactics wouldn't get passed on much. But successful groups would spread their knowledge to other members/groups.
1) My roomate does freelance fact checking for major print publications sometimes. She's very carful about her job but alot of her coworkers aren't.
2) Have you seen the headlines that read "Talibam!" or "Kabulseye!"?
Also this doesn't address one of the major flaws of main stream media. It's not that they outright lie (although often they do). But that they can distort the truth by selective publication.
When the NYT gives equal coverage to 5000 peace protesters and 50 war supporters at Union Square, your average reader ends up thinking that the people assembled there were equally split between the two opinions. They didn't have to lie but they certainly weren't telling the truthe.
I actually bought 2 copies of 1/2-life. Once when it first came out and then when they released one of the expansions.
When I moved I lost both of the jewel boxes.
So I downloaded a key-generator and after a few tries I ended up with a key which worked for network play.
Furthermore, this scheme has very limited applications. How would you apply this to music, or videos, or e-books?
Given our current situation (I'll explain what I mean by that in a bit) I don't think DRM is possible.
If a publisher presents you with some content in a form that's suitable for you to use you can do whatever you want with the content afterwards.
No matter how good your encryption is and how carful you are about the keys, at some point you have to give the user the plaintext.
Of course plaintext also includes plainvideo, or plainsound, or plain.
The only way around this problem will involve massive restrictions on our freedoms.
Not the kind of restrictions that Emmanuel Goldstien gets worked up over but really serious restrictions.
If a company could controle who you talk to, who you listen to, what you're allowed to say etc. and had a realistic way of enforcing this, then they could protect their "digital rights". Otherwise they'll flounder before they even get started.
Actually I don't know why Adobe, the RIAA and their ilk even bother trying. I'm pretty sure there are formal rigerous proofs that they're doomed to failure.
I. First I will cite Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com)
/.
Atheist: One who denies the existence of God.
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable.
Religion: (definition 4) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Faith: (definition 2.b.1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Since according to your own statement (which is also incorrect but I'll get to that later) "It's impossible to prove the non existence of something." Atheism is indeed a religion.
II. Now, on to your condescending statement about my education.
1) When I graduated from college they were still less than 2000 registered users on
2) I took logic in high school.
3) It is possible to prove the non existence of something (see below)
4) You misspelled college.
Collage: an artistic composition made of various materials (as paper, cloth, or wood) glued on a surface.
College: a body of clergy living together and supported by a foundation.
III. What burden of proof? I'm not arguing the existence of God I'm arguing the status of Atheism as a religion. Since this arguement rests on the non existence of a proof for the non existence of God, the burden would be on you to:
1) Prove the existence of a proof for the non existence of God. Or,
2) Dispute the definitions of Atheism, Agnosticism, Religion, or Faith as provided by Merriam-Webster.
IV. Sidharthas opinions on reincarnation are not relevant in a discussion on the status of Buddhism as a theistic religion. While I have already agreed that Buddhism (in it's original form) is non-theistic, I still maintain that Buddhism is theistic because in practice Buddha is treated as a god.
Apendix: How to prove the non existence of something.
1) Assume that something exists.
2) Show that this assumption creates a paradox.
3) Since the assumption is the only variable in the proof it must be incorrect.
Caveats: You will still have to rely on axioms, and definitions for your proof but if you aren't willing to accept those then logic pretty much goes out the window.
Example: Prove the non-existance of a triangle containing parallel edges.
1) Assume that there exists a triangle containing parallel edges.
2) The sum of the angles between those lines and the third line is 180 deg. (definition of parallel lines)
3) The remaining angle is non zero (definition of intersecting lines)
4) The sum of the angles of this triangle is not equal to 180 deg. (180 + != 180)
5) The sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. (corollary of the definition of a triangle)
6) The assumption in 1 must be false. Therefore there does not exist a triangle containing parallel sides.
Notes:
1) I left out some steps but filling them in is left as an exercise to the reader.
2) This proof assumes cartesian coordinates. In polar coordinates the sum of the angles of a triangle don't have to add up to 180 deg.
This isn't quite correct.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. The non belief in god which you were referring to is known as Agnosticism. There's a subtle distinction and most people ignore it but it's pretty important.
Agnostics believe that the existance or non-existance of god is unknowable. Most of them also believe that because of this, the actual existance or non-existance of god is irellevant too.
Atheists believe that god does not exist. The usual explanation for this is that since noone can prove the existance of god, it must be unproveable. Therefore god does not exist.
Depending on how you define religion (whichever definition you pick it's widely disputed), atheism qualifies. After all noone has ever shown the non existance of god with anything even remotely resembling a rigorous proof.
Also Budhism is is not the only exception.
Taoism, and Humanism are both non-theistic religions (at least in theory).
While Budhism is technically a non-theistic religion in practice many adherants treat the various Budhasa and Bodhisatvas as deities. They are looked to for guidance and frequently asked to intervene on the behalf of humans.
I think it may be more profitable in the long run not to set up puppet dictators in the first place. How bad of a track record does a policy have to have before we abandon it as flawed?
You mean, were we not human. We are by our natures a violent species. Observe children--the most natural of men. Observe savages. We are a brutal, bloodthirsty species. I have no doubt that the first tools we fashioned were clubs to kill our fellows. Just look at chimpanzees.
While it is tempting to look at our violent bloody history and assume that war is in our nature it is a fallacy.
As far a science is concerened, it is widely known that the failure to observe an event (proglonged periods of peace in human societies) does not indicate that said event cannot or does not exist. It only indictaes that we haven't observed it yet.
On a more humanistic level, we are neither chimpanzees nor children. We have the intellect to see the horrors, and inefficiencies of war. If we are undergoing any advancement as a species surely this is one flaw worth evolving away from.
Besides anthropology, and zoology suggest that homicide (much less war) are only engaged in after a certain level of wealth is attained. While our earliest tools (and those of chimpanzees) are weapons, they are primarily for hunting other species. Killing off members of your own species just isn't profitable when you depend on them for your own survival.
That's why we need a military. That's why we need, sometimes, to fight and to kill. Because if we don't, the other guy will. The pacifist's dream--that if we don't, the other guy won't--is just that: a dream. It's a noble dream, but a dream nonetheless.
I'll agree with the second part, sort of.
First of all, I'm not a pacifist, I'm a rather well trained martial artist, and I respond to attacks with levels of violence that make even rather violent people cringe.
Second, the pacifist dream is an end to violence, it does not indicate the method to achieving this goal. Most pacifists would agree that the method should be non-violent, but anyone can see that it's likely to take more than simply not being violent.
It is possible to diffuse violence before it starts. This is often quite difficult but the rewards (or rather lack of costs) are generally worth it.
He was Christian just not a member of any specific denomination. But he was raised Episcopalian.
Even now there are Americans cheering the deaths of Afghanis. I've seen them myself. Our media just doesn't show those pictures.
- Help the Northern Alliance set up a totalitarian regime in Afghanistan.
- Bomb the hell out of them 20 years from now because yet another blowfish bit us in the ass.
Why would this surprise you? All of our presidents have been Christian. And since the attack we've been talking all kinds of trash about how god will bless us as we go about on our mission to erradicate evil.
This has sounded like a crusade from day one.
Hold on buddy. We've done plenty of killing innocents. In fact, the bombs we dropped on on Hiroshima and Nagasiki killed mostly civillians.
German military production had not moved to homes and small businesses at any point. There's no way you can manufacture any but the crudest military equipment without pretty advanced production facilities. My grandmother and great aunt narrowly avoided having to work in munitions plants in Austria at the time. Instead they got to be tram conductors. They were not manufacturig anything when bombs were falling around their homes.
Don't get me wrong now. What happened during WWII was inexcuseable. The Nazi government was an attrocious regime and the people of Germany and Austria followed along like so many armed sheep. The really sad part is that we haven't learned a damned thing from this and we seem to be embarking on exactly the same path.
What I don't understand about the groups condemning any military response is that they fail to realize that the military is fighting for their freedom.
Nonsense. Who is fighting for my freedom? The troops? They're fighting because they have orders.
The generals? They're fighting to maintain their positions. Their corporate backers? They're fighting for money.
I saw an interview on Fox news about some group that believed that WW II could have been won by non-violent protests and the like. I'm sure that the axis powers would allow anti-war marches in Berlin.
Anti-war marches wouldn't have stopped WWII. But then again we would never have had to have gotten involved if we hadn't been so good at financing and arming both sides of the conflict.
Our country is at war now, even if it is undeclared one. Americans should support their country during these times, even though they might not want to be at war.
Bzzt. Wrong! If we were at war, president Bush would be in violation of the US constitution. He would never do that, right?
Having your own thoughts and the right to express them is one of many things that makes this country great, but there comes a time and place where you need to support your country (and military) first. So far these groups have not done anything wrong yet...I would hate to see things degrade to their status durring the Vietnam war days.
Having your own thoughts and the right to express them are an illusion in this country. We've had book burnings, book bannings, and censorship galore. And now you're saying that people shouldn't express their views so that we can protect our right to express our views? This whole story is like something out of a bad Orwell knockoff.
We've been in a continual state of war readiness for 50 years now.
And telling a nation "Give up your national sovreignty or we'll kick your ass." is not looking for the most peaceful solution.
This is how playground bullies behave when they want your milk money, except we've got cruise missiles.