An alternate theory, one I think suggests less of a power-grab: Maybe Ashcroft doesn't agree with Bush and wants out of his organization. They have a private agreement allowing a decent exit.
This isn't necessarily my opinion, but I think it's important to recognize it as being as much a possibility as the sinister plots we see suggested every day.
The key thing with peltiers is that they just *move* heat. This can be more effective cooling because you can move heat from the CPU core (normally a very small area) to a much larger area. Yes, your net heat is a bit more, but you have a reasonably sized area to cool, which is a much easier problem.
We *know* computers can count very well. That's what they were designed for. The problem with the test they ran is that they tried to have a normal, successful election. Try this test: try to rig it. So it succeeds at the easy part, that proves nothing. I hope TrueVoteMD manages to flog the state on this one.
I see you've never made an honest mistake and forgotten to uncomment out a line of code before.
You know what, I have. Many times. Here's the thing, the real kicker here: when my code fails, nothing bad happens. When *my* code fails, no one's pacemaker stops. When my code fails, nobody's automatic medication overdoses them. When my code fails, planes don't fall from the sky.
When the code on a voting machine fails, democracy fails. The instant that a mistake is made there, in one of the most important systems in the world, catastrophy strikes. It is not exagerating in any way to say that forgetting to uncomment a line of code could result in the deaths of millions, as the minority's leader drives us into a war we don't want.
I don't bet the fate of the world (and don't tell me that electing the wrong official wouldn't affect everybody) on my 'honest mistake'. When that comes up, I expect more. I expect a lot more testing, a lot more review. We know how to write reliable software. It's a crime to surrender our nation by not doing so.
How does your explanation in any way whatsoever indicate that the machines are secure? You state that they had problems that weren't caught in testing and that a nontechnical person (election commissioner) thinks that they'll probably work next time. So they fixed one bug. That just shows that there was one more than there should be in a mission critical system. If it was a bug in a pacemaker, you wouldn't be so happy when you said "We'll probably get it right next time."
I do not see that that indicates security in any way whatsoever. Please explain.
Docbook is an XML based document format, with support to output to many different formats, including HTML and LaTeX, as I recall.
I'm not sure how the docbook LaTeX filters work, but you may want to avoid LaTeX, for several reasons: special characters. LaTeX doesn't do Unicode, you'll have to translate those characters. That's not a huge problem, merely an annoyance.
But quotes can be annoying. Latex wants directional quotes. This is fine only if you have full control of your source and are willing to deal with it.
I tried to go direct to latex on one of my projects, it's not straightforward. Unless I'm missing something obvious; if someone does know a solution, please inform me 8-}
And how, exactly, is this evidence that it's our fault? We've seen the effect, but we *don't* know what the cause is. Is it things we're releasing? Maybe. It could also be other things, and a good case has been made for it.
This article alludes to human usage, but presents no evidence. In fact, one of the researches points to forest fires as a cause.
Of course humans are contributing, this is known. But how much we're doing is not, repeant *not*, established at all.
The thing is, that's the entire point of the electoral college system: that the people *don't* get to elect a leader. The people only get to recommend them. There have been a handful of times already in history when the popular vote didn't go the way of the electoral vote. Not many, but it's happened.
I don't think this will open any more eyes; any such closed eyes are probably on corpses. Everyone else is required to understand their government as part of high school.
Good artists borrow, great artists steal, isn't that how it goes?
Yes, it's preachy, not terribly original, and related to many other movies. But it's still fun. And it's definatly still sci-fi. Yes, I realize that, but how many works are collections of things done before? Nearly every one.
I don't disagree with you, but I think it was a good movie. And a topical example, at the very least;)
I see I made my point poorly. My apologies. The point is to change the setting in a sciencey way to examine something. The point is the meaning. As I said, X-Men is about being different (the fact that magic is what's different is immaterial). Blade Runner is about what it means to be human. They both change things in a sciencey way, for the purpose of examining . I can see no such parallel for Star Wars. The amount of made up futuristic things doesn't make it sci-fi.
A Clockwork Orange is an examination of free will (with the pseudo-science of brainwashing). Equilibrium is about what it means to be alive, to feel, the importance of emotion (with the pseudo-science of an anti-emotion drug). Minority Report is about free will as well as punishment, based around the feature of seeing the future.
X-Men is sci-fi in the same way that Pleasantville is sci-fi: X-Men was never about having realistic science, and most sci-fi isn't. X-Men is great in that it's about discrimination and living with being different. It's sci-fi not because of the science in it, but because it follows the definitive sci-fi paradigm of changing the setting in a pseudo-science-ish speculative way (which is why SF actually stands for *speculative* fiction, by the way.)
Star Wars, on the other hand, is a classic western, complete with gun-toting cowboys (and even some interesting horses) and chases and shootouts. Sci-fi is not defined by having spaceships, and never has been.
Exactly what I was wondering when I saw the list. I classify maybe half the movies up there as sci-fi. The rest are pure fantasy. If they'd really been polling about sci-fi, they'd include at least one of: 1984, Equilibrium, X-Men, A Clockwork Orange, Minority Report.
The original Star Wars was a great movie. But it's space opera at its best.
I think part of the problem is just the relative lack of good sci-fi films. There's a lot, sure. But there's more good dramas.
Yeah, it's a bit nit-picky to knock them quite so much on what may be a small topic, but I think the article would have made out much differently if they'd only allowed sci-fi movies.
"If the job of a representative is to respond to his costituents' wishes"?
You do realize, I hope, that this is in no way whatsoever the job of a rep? The job of a representative to the government is this: to protect his constituents' best interests the best that he/she can. The difference is small, but extremely important: very often the WISHES of the constituents (i.e. no taxes) conflict with their INTERESTS (paying for enough of a military to not be bombed back to the stone age).
I don't see any reason to think that there's no balance to be had. Maybe I'm just optimistic. I'm not sure if there's a reason (beyond technical feasiblity) to suggest that phone calls whose endpoints are on the internet should be regulated any differently than POTS calls. I think this whole terrorist is just a red herring.
The best example is probably in the old Voodoo2 SLI setup, because it had partitioned memory. The texture memory had the same contents on both cards; what was duplicated was the frame buffer. Back then, the frame buffer was big. Since it's more textures now, SLI probably won't do much, if anything. It could conceivably make it worse, due to overhead. I doubt that last, though.
I wouldn't ask scifi writers can/should we terraform. I would ask ethicists if we should, and chemists, astrophysicists, etc if we can.
Did it occur to you that the people that have most pondered the ability to and impact of terraforming are the SF writers? Did you consider that those same people are often Ph.D's?
The SF writers are most likely far better versed in the issue than any 'ethnician'. They have been debating the ethics of just such an operation since terraforming was conceived. Which, by the way, was concieved by a SF writer.
No, their input is of much value. Your ethnicians ideas are as well, of course. But the writers and thinkers I would ask first, not last.
Right now I'm replacing a 20+ year old CBASIC system that runs on DOS and a handful of Wyse-50's with a Python/Postgres/Linux solution. And you think 2K won't be around for long? I'd be surprised if WinXP died that fast.
Because the bovine damned will give us beef TWICE! Zombie meat!
I mean, what would you do if the humans came back instead? Hmm, we'd probably make them fill out forms if they resurrected without their social security cards...
Get off your fucking high horse. Yes, they are not necessary everywhere, but you do realize that 1) It pisses me off when the price of gas goes up for no reason other than to screw the consumer out of more money, and 2) that $2.00 is NOT cheap, not for a huge number of people. Your six figures is not average. There're millions of people who don't have quality bus access (now maybe they *should*, but fix it before you preach).
And yes, gas DOES go up for no reason. When demand remains unchanged, and the price of crude remains unchanged, it stands to reason that the price should be fairly constant, not jumping tens of percent. Back when gas first had hit $1.75, which was high not so very long ago, crude had gone up about 50 cents per BARREL. Per 55 gallon drum. The 20% increase in cost per gallon does NOT follow whatsoever.
I dislike the moral high ground on things like this, because I don't think it works. Consider: In order for you to live, other things must die. Period. It is impossible for you to live without causing the death of animals and plants.
The second thing is this: is it not better to use the cows more completely, rather than wasting large parts of them? If it was me being slaughtered instead of them - aside from the question of whether I want to be slaughtered, that's not important. If it *was* me, then - I would be much happier if they used most of me, rather than just killing me and taking my toenails.
What effect? None. All of that's already going hell for just that reason. This magic would just be the nail on the coffin. Hell, it'd probably be better to finish it off anyway so we can start fixing it.
And then the ethical problems. If you save lives (and don't tell me that curing heart attacks, diabetes, and cancer won't save lives), is it ethical to not do so? Is it better to watch them die, knowing that you could have helped, but didn't just so that you could get your social security check?
To quote someone much smarter than I: If science is the source of problems, ignorance is not the solution.
Is the magic pill available in a bundle with
on
Nano Body Building
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
my flying car? Can I get a discount if I get them both together? I'll pay another $500 if you throw in some cold-fusion!
In all likelyhood, you won't get this chance again. I say go for it.
You're not very likely at all to 'destroy your career'. You may go broke, make little on the tour, and have problems getting a job when you get back. But that may happen anyway.
What's your worst case scenario? You get a job flipping burgers or move in with your parents or something. Big deal, everyone eats some shit once in a while. You're looking at a *paid vacation*. That's what you're getting.
Yeah, it may not work. But if it were me, I'd take it. Now, I have no responsibilities; no kids, no wife. I can *always* walk away anything until then, because I have nothing to lose. So you might be out a little money. If money's that important to you, I suggest you recognize that and deal appropriately.
Slashdot Mirror
An alternate theory, one I think suggests less of a power-grab: Maybe Ashcroft doesn't agree with Bush and wants out of his organization. They have a private agreement allowing a decent exit.
This isn't necessarily my opinion, but I think it's important to recognize it as being as much a possibility as the sinister plots we see suggested every day.
The key thing with peltiers is that they just *move* heat. This can be more effective cooling because you can move heat from the CPU core (normally a very small area) to a much larger area. Yes, your net heat is a bit more, but you have a reasonably sized area to cool, which is a much easier problem.
We *know* computers can count very well. That's what they were designed for. The problem with the test they ran is that they tried to have a normal, successful election. Try this test: try to rig it. So it succeeds at the easy part, that proves nothing. I hope TrueVoteMD manages to flog the state on this one.
You know what, I have. Many times. Here's the thing, the real kicker here: when my code fails, nothing bad happens. When *my* code fails, no one's pacemaker stops. When my code fails, nobody's automatic medication overdoses them. When my code fails, planes don't fall from the sky.
When the code on a voting machine fails, democracy fails. The instant that a mistake is made there, in one of the most important systems in the world, catastrophy strikes. It is not exagerating in any way to say that forgetting to uncomment a line of code could result in the deaths of millions, as the minority's leader drives us into a war we don't want.
I don't bet the fate of the world (and don't tell me that electing the wrong official wouldn't affect everybody) on my 'honest mistake'. When that comes up, I expect more. I expect a lot more testing, a lot more review. We know how to write reliable software. It's a crime to surrender our nation by not doing so.
Please assume that I'm a moron for a second here.
How does your explanation in any way whatsoever indicate that the machines are secure? You state that they had problems that weren't caught in testing and that a nontechnical person (election commissioner) thinks that they'll probably work next time. So they fixed one bug. That just shows that there was one more than there should be in a mission critical system. If it was a bug in a pacemaker, you wouldn't be so happy when you said "We'll probably get it right next time."
I do not see that that indicates security in any way whatsoever. Please explain.
Docbook is an XML based document format, with support to output to many different formats, including HTML and LaTeX, as I recall.
I'm not sure how the docbook LaTeX filters work, but you may want to avoid LaTeX, for several reasons: special characters. LaTeX doesn't do Unicode, you'll have to translate those characters. That's not a huge problem, merely an annoyance.
But quotes can be annoying. Latex wants directional quotes. This is fine only if you have full control of your source and are willing to deal with it.
I tried to go direct to latex on one of my projects, it's not straightforward. Unless I'm missing something obvious; if someone does know a solution, please inform me 8-}
And how, exactly, is this evidence that it's our fault? We've seen the effect, but we *don't* know what the cause is. Is it things we're releasing? Maybe. It could also be other things, and a good case has been made for it.
This article alludes to human usage, but presents no evidence. In fact, one of the researches points to forest fires as a cause.
Of course humans are contributing, this is known. But how much we're doing is not, repeant *not*, established at all.
It's warm in the sand, down here, thank you.
The thing is, that's the entire point of the electoral college system: that the people *don't* get to elect a leader. The people only get to recommend them. There have been a handful of times already in history when the popular vote didn't go the way of the electoral vote. Not many, but it's happened.
I don't think this will open any more eyes; any such closed eyes are probably on corpses. Everyone else is required to understand their government as part of high school.
Good artists borrow, great artists steal, isn't that how it goes?
;)
Yes, it's preachy, not terribly original, and related to many other movies. But it's still fun. And it's definatly still sci-fi. Yes, I realize that, but how many works are collections of things done before? Nearly every one.
I don't disagree with you, but I think it was a good movie. And a topical example, at the very least
I see I made my point poorly. My apologies. The point is to change the setting in a sciencey way to examine something. The point is the meaning. As I said, X-Men is about being different (the fact that magic is what's different is immaterial). Blade Runner is about what it means to be human. They both change things in a sciencey way, for the purpose of examining . I can see no such parallel for Star Wars. The amount of made up futuristic things doesn't make it sci-fi.
A Clockwork Orange is an examination of free will (with the pseudo-science of brainwashing). Equilibrium is about what it means to be alive, to feel, the importance of emotion (with the pseudo-science of an anti-emotion drug). Minority Report is about free will as well as punishment, based around the feature of seeing the future.
But what does Star Wars have? It has puppets.
X-Men is sci-fi in the same way that Pleasantville is sci-fi: X-Men was never about having realistic science, and most sci-fi isn't. X-Men is great in that it's about discrimination and living with being different. It's sci-fi not because of the science in it, but because it follows the definitive sci-fi paradigm of changing the setting in a pseudo-science-ish speculative way (which is why SF actually stands for *speculative* fiction, by the way.)
Star Wars, on the other hand, is a classic western, complete with gun-toting cowboys (and even some interesting horses) and chases and shootouts. Sci-fi is not defined by having spaceships, and never has been.
Exactly what I was wondering when I saw the list. I classify maybe half the movies up there as sci-fi. The rest are pure fantasy. If they'd really been polling about sci-fi, they'd include at least one of: 1984, Equilibrium, X-Men, A Clockwork Orange, Minority Report.
The original Star Wars was a great movie. But it's space opera at its best.
I think part of the problem is just the relative lack of good sci-fi films. There's a lot, sure. But there's more good dramas.
Yeah, it's a bit nit-picky to knock them quite so much on what may be a small topic, but I think the article would have made out much differently if they'd only allowed sci-fi movies.
"If the job of a representative is to respond to his costituents' wishes"?
You do realize, I hope, that this is in no way whatsoever the job of a rep? The job of a representative to the government is this: to protect his constituents' best interests the best that he/she can. The difference is small, but extremely important: very often the WISHES of the constituents (i.e. no taxes) conflict with their INTERESTS (paying for enough of a military to not be bombed back to the stone age).
I don't see any reason to think that there's no balance to be had. Maybe I'm just optimistic. I'm not sure if there's a reason (beyond technical feasiblity) to suggest that phone calls whose endpoints are on the internet should be regulated any differently than POTS calls. I think this whole terrorist is just a red herring.
The best example is probably in the old Voodoo2 SLI setup, because it had partitioned memory. The texture memory had the same contents on both cards; what was duplicated was the frame buffer. Back then, the frame buffer was big. Since it's more textures now, SLI probably won't do much, if anything. It could conceivably make it worse, due to overhead. I doubt that last, though.
I wouldn't ask scifi writers can/should we terraform. I would ask ethicists if we should, and chemists, astrophysicists, etc if we can.
Did it occur to you that the people that have most pondered the ability to and impact of terraforming are the SF writers? Did you consider that those same people are often Ph.D's?
The SF writers are most likely far better versed in the issue than any 'ethnician'. They have been debating the ethics of just such an operation since terraforming was conceived. Which, by the way, was concieved by a SF writer.
No, their input is of much value. Your ethnicians ideas are as well, of course. But the writers and thinkers I would ask first, not last.
Right now I'm replacing a 20+ year old CBASIC system that runs on DOS and a handful of Wyse-50's with a Python/Postgres/Linux solution. And you think 2K won't be around for long? I'd be surprised if WinXP died that fast.
Which also makes this a good idea 8-}
Because the bovine damned will give us beef TWICE! Zombie meat!
I mean, what would you do if the humans came back instead? Hmm, we'd probably make them fill out forms if they resurrected without their social security cards...
Get off your fucking high horse. Yes, they are not necessary everywhere, but you do realize that 1) It pisses me off when the price of gas goes up for no reason other than to screw the consumer out of more money, and 2) that $2.00 is NOT cheap, not for a huge number of people. Your six figures is not average. There're millions of people who don't have quality bus access (now maybe they *should*, but fix it before you preach).
And yes, gas DOES go up for no reason. When demand remains unchanged, and the price of crude remains unchanged, it stands to reason that the price should be fairly constant, not jumping tens of percent. Back when gas first had hit $1.75, which was high not so very long ago, crude had gone up about 50 cents per BARREL. Per 55 gallon drum. The 20% increase in cost per gallon does NOT follow whatsoever.
I dislike the moral high ground on things like this, because I don't think it works. Consider: In order for you to live, other things must die. Period. It is impossible for you to live without causing the death of animals and plants.
;)
The second thing is this: is it not better to use the cows more completely, rather than wasting large parts of them? If it was me being slaughtered instead of them - aside from the question of whether I want to be slaughtered, that's not important. If it *was* me, then - I would be much happier if they used most of me, rather than just killing me and taking my toenails.
And besides, it is kinda funny
Hell, it'll probably just average out ;) By living unhealthily and taking magic pills, I can probably just manage a normal lifespan 8-}
What effect? None. All of that's already going hell for just that reason. This magic would just be the nail on the coffin. Hell, it'd probably be better to finish it off anyway so we can start fixing it.
And then the ethical problems. If you save lives (and don't tell me that curing heart attacks, diabetes, and cancer won't save lives), is it ethical to not do so? Is it better to watch them die, knowing that you could have helped, but didn't just so that you could get your social security check?
To quote someone much smarter than I: If science is the source of problems, ignorance is not the solution.
my flying car? Can I get a discount if I get them both together? I'll pay another $500 if you throw in some cold-fusion!
Wake me when they can demo the stuff.
In all likelyhood, you won't get this chance again. I say go for it.
You're not very likely at all to 'destroy your career'. You may go broke, make little on the tour, and have problems getting a job when you get back. But that may happen anyway.
What's your worst case scenario? You get a job flipping burgers or move in with your parents or something. Big deal, everyone eats some shit once in a while. You're looking at a *paid vacation*. That's what you're getting.
Yeah, it may not work. But if it were me, I'd take it. Now, I have no responsibilities; no kids, no wife. I can *always* walk away anything until then, because I have nothing to lose. So you might be out a little money. If money's that important to you, I suggest you recognize that and deal appropriately.
You're an idiot if you keep working the day job.
No, the moral is:
if you promote your project enough, you may be able to work with a chick like Angolina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow 8-}