I wasn't talking about leaving. I was talking about dissolving relations with a governing body. As in, all of us don't like it, so we make you (the government) leave.
"Consent of the governed" disappeared with Lincoln. The right of States to leave the Federation has been forcefully infringed. It's funny how he has the reputation of freeing slaves, when in reality, he just ended up making a slave of everyone.
The entire country of North Korea is sitting on one class A network (16,777,216 addresses).
Possible but not likely. It is more likely that the country is split into many state run networks, all of which have a state owned machine with a 10.76.1.11 interface. It would provide more IP space, segregate the country into different Internet groups (in N Korea probably social classes), provide protection for some of those classes against DDOS worms infecting other classes, and make the "for your own good citizen" monitoring more tractable.
There are some addresses on the internet that are only associated (except for misuse) with 1 device, these are "public IP".
There are some addresses on the internet that are intended to be associated with multiple devices, these are "private IP".
Private addresses can only be "seen" on a local network, so only one instance of a private address per local network. If you ask for a connection to a private address and the local network doesn't have it, your network won't make any connection for you (even though hypothetically there is several people in the world on other local networks with that address).
It's like being at a family reunion and asking for "John", and not getting a response because no one there is named John, even though a lot of people in the world share that name. On the other hand, if you ask for "Gilgamesh", well then people know to send you to ancient Sur, even though no one in your family is named "Gilgamesh". John is a private reusable identifier, Gilgamesh is a public unique identifier.
The consequence of this is that to run a service for which machines from outside of your local network can connect to, you have to associate the service with a public address. Due to North Korea being one gigantic "local network" (something that usualy only exists on the scale of homes and companies), no one in the world can request a connection to anyone in North Korea, unless a public address/port pair is preallocated to that person. NKoreans can still request connections to the rest of the world, assuming that the routers on the edge of their private network can remember all those connections. For a healthy country, remembering so much would be almost impossible, but for North Korea, it is a sign of how few people can make Internet connections to the rest of the world.
If you respond at all then you can be controlled. For example, antagonists to muslims could use you. The proper response is just to carry on, defend yourself if needed, petition the courts if the crime is ignored (likely not), but otherwise ignore them.
I wouldn't say that violence is the problem. Violence is what threw out the British Empire and freed the US Colonies, and led to the first amendment.
Violence against tyrants is not a problem, and Islam attempts to make itself a tyranny over the whole world. But violence must come second to reason. An idea is far more powerful than any violence. The American Revolution could only be successful because of the support of enough people sharing the same idea.
The problem with Islam isn't the violent ones, it is the nonviolent ones. It all of the Muslim world actively engaged in violence rather than passively accepting it, the public idea of the religion would solidify and the religion would be destroyed shortly. But the US is hardly in any position to criticize, given the empire building and foreign slaughter it has been engaged in.
He spends the entire rest of chapter clarifying what "the law" is.
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
Have you noticed the pattern? It is not about some list of legalize, "this is ok and that is not ok". It is restated many times in the letters of the apostles as well, the measure of a person (that everyone was said to fail except Jesus) was a matter of "heart". Even after claiming to fulfill the law in your quote, Jesus dismisses those who take the law to be a matter of legal technicalities rather than a philosophy:
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
But how exactly would the government regulate 3D printers? Tax them to hell? Ban them completely? Because there's little chance they can enforce any other regulation.
There are many people who devote their entire existence to trying to use law to force you live your life as they see appropriate. They will use all their self righteous motivation, all the existing laws protecting the 2 large political parties, and all of your tax dollars to find a way to answer that question.
The danger of this is that they won't charge you if they think the court will strike down the law on appeal. That is how National Security Letters have survived so long, they drop charges against violators.
If "drawing the foul" is really his plan, then (I'm no expert just speculating) that he would have to be careful of them charging him with an economic crime. Like "not paying taxes on printed firearms" or something, in order to pretend like they are not violating the constitution. Or violating a patent on firearms, or violating Apple's claim on rounded corners, or "terrorism" , or "disturbing the peace" (which I imagine has more severe charges the 3rd time you do it), etc.
I've never understood the appeal of museums. They are the most boring place in the world to be dragged to. It's not like you can learn anything or interact with anything there. It's like people are afraid to admit they are boring because they are afraid to appear uncultured. Does anyone honestly enjoy museums?
Perhaps the court needs to expressly rule that the use of technology to gain information about what is going on inside someone's home constitutes a search and requires a warrant. It seems obvious to me that this is a breach of everyone's constitutional rights.
That is absolutely nonsensical. Do eye glasses count as technology? Does sitting in a car and looking out the window count as technology? Subjective laws are never a good thing.
The distinction that everyone seems to be missing is a matter of principle. Would it be legal for someone not working as a LEO to use one of these devices nonconsentually? Probably not, it would probably be considered stalking, voyeurism, etc.
You can filter out stories? Is this a slashdot feature or do you need a plugin? For example, how would I filter out all the global warming (or whatever they renamed it to again) stories?
This is how adults resolve things. There were no lawsuits. There were no mass protests. There was a guy who said "Yeah, that picture the algorithm picked? It hurt." And Facebook said "Wow, we can see that would hurt, and we're sorry it did. We will try to do better."
WTF is wrong with this exchange?
The problem is that the web designer's situation should be irrelevant to our evaluation of the choice Facebook made. Sure, it makes it easier for unreasonable people to draw emotional conclusions. What if the web designer was lying, and completely fabricating the complaint? Most people's opinion would change.
If Facebook posted aggregate pictures to their server, then there are 2 questions: do they break any (reasonable) law, and did they do something to upset their customers or users? "My child died of cancer" is not relevant. This is why courtrooms have to throw out "evidence", because only a small percentile of a small percentile of people can actually forcefully ignore such things in their considerations.
Currying was developed to simplify the axioms of Church's lambda calculus. That is about as "low level" as is conceivable. It is not an application level feature. It should NEVER be used in an application programming language.
Just because you can define things in a shitty way doesn't mean you should.
Maybe because today isn't the first day everyone has heard of Sony? They have a history of being assholes. They get away with illlegal or should-be-illegal behavior and product characteristics directed at their customers that makes us all hate them. If they weren't protected by an army of lawyers with chains of patents and copyrights, they would be out of business long ago.
And now they "oh, we're just going to show you a little bit of our crappy movie, hurry or you'll miss it!"...pass.
There is always profit motive. Always. It's just myopic to define profit only in terms of currency.
Getting a profit of medicinal development is still profit. Getting a profit of money is fine too. Pretending that this is being done without profit because you happen to like the form the profit takes is ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure he was coming down on their artificial monopolies and subsidies. Treatments are worthless if you can't afford them, economics is a reality that morality cannot overcome.
Has anyone gotten a card that keeps your internet connection running without interruptions and at advertised capacity? I'd also like a card that makes them lower their prices to the level that they would be at if they weren't selling a monopoly utility. Thanks~~
So I'd place my actual learning at about 10% textbook(and I'm being generous), 30% lecture, 20% math tutoring/TA help, 40% internet.
Since I don't know your specific situation, I could be completely misinterpreting what you mean. But it seems you have 0% "figure out the problem".
Math isn't a subject that has to be learned the way foreign language or geography has to be learned. If you don't have something described to you in a book, then you absolutely need another reference to learn most subjects (such as a TA, Lecture, or Internet).
But with math you never need a reference for anything but definitions, and most definitions should be obvious anyway. There is always a first person to solve a math problem, and he had no references.
Like I said, I could be completely misreading your situation, but from what you wrote, it sounds like if there isn't a template for how to solve every single problem type that you give up. If all you know how to do is follow methods and change numbers around here and there, then you aren't learning math.
The greatest instruction anyone can give a person who pursues math is simply to ask a question that they can solve if they try. Many of us who study math seriously love nothing more than to be given a problem that's just barely out of reach.
There is no ambiguity in Matthew 10. It is clearly stating that the violence will be directed against the disciples, not encouraging the disciples promote violence. It is absolutely crystal clear. Just read it for yourself.
The actual fundamentals of christianity are peaceful. It is a 100% peaceful religion. The fact that some people can lie about the writings of christianity doesn't change it into a violent religion. Since when has lying about a subject been acceptable grounds for recharacterizing the subject? Would you apply this same standard to anything else?
And as far as legislation goes, legislation is never peaceful. It is always violently enforced. It was a nation of protestants that wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- that is, preventing legislation. Modern day crusaders who try to enforce their own beliefs through legislation know nothing of christianity.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't talking about leaving. I was talking about dissolving relations with a governing body. As in, all of us don't like it, so we make you (the government) leave.
"Consent of the governed" disappeared with Lincoln. The right of States to leave the Federation has been forcefully infringed. It's funny how he has the reputation of freeing slaves, when in reality, he just ended up making a slave of everyone.
The entire country of North Korea is sitting on one class A network (16,777,216 addresses).
Possible but not likely. It is more likely that the country is split into many state run networks, all of which have a state owned machine with a 10.76.1.11 interface. It would provide more IP space, segregate the country into different Internet groups (in N Korea probably social classes), provide protection for some of those classes against DDOS worms infecting other classes, and make the "for your own good citizen" monitoring more tractable.
There are some addresses on the internet that are only associated (except for misuse) with 1 device, these are "public IP".
There are some addresses on the internet that are intended to be associated with multiple devices, these are "private IP".
Private addresses can only be "seen" on a local network, so only one instance of a private address per local network. If you ask for a connection to a private address and the local network doesn't have it, your network won't make any connection for you (even though hypothetically there is several people in the world on other local networks with that address).
It's like being at a family reunion and asking for "John", and not getting a response because no one there is named John, even though a lot of people in the world share that name. On the other hand, if you ask for "Gilgamesh", well then people know to send you to ancient Sur, even though no one in your family is named "Gilgamesh". John is a private reusable identifier, Gilgamesh is a public unique identifier.
The consequence of this is that to run a service for which machines from outside of your local network can connect to, you have to associate the service with a public address. Due to North Korea being one gigantic "local network" (something that usualy only exists on the scale of homes and companies), no one in the world can request a connection to anyone in North Korea, unless a public address/port pair is preallocated to that person. NKoreans can still request connections to the rest of the world, assuming that the routers on the edge of their private network can remember all those connections. For a healthy country, remembering so much would be almost impossible, but for North Korea, it is a sign of how few people can make Internet connections to the rest of the world.
If you respond at all then you can be controlled. For example, antagonists to muslims could use you. The proper response is just to carry on, defend yourself if needed, petition the courts if the crime is ignored (likely not), but otherwise ignore them.
I wouldn't say that violence is the problem. Violence is what threw out the British Empire and freed the US Colonies, and led to the first amendment.
Violence against tyrants is not a problem, and Islam attempts to make itself a tyranny over the whole world. But violence must come second to reason. An idea is far more powerful than any violence. The American Revolution could only be successful because of the support of enough people sharing the same idea.
The problem with Islam isn't the violent ones, it is the nonviolent ones. It all of the Muslim world actively engaged in violence rather than passively accepting it, the public idea of the religion would solidify and the religion would be destroyed shortly. But the US is hardly in any position to criticize, given the empire building and foreign slaughter it has been engaged in.
You should have read the entire chapter.
He spends the entire rest of chapter clarifying what "the law" is.
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
Have you noticed the pattern? It is not about some list of legalize, "this is ok and that is not ok". It is restated many times in the letters of the apostles as well, the measure of a person (that everyone was said to fail except Jesus) was a matter of "heart". Even after claiming to fulfill the law in your quote, Jesus dismisses those who take the law to be a matter of legal technicalities rather than a philosophy:
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
But how exactly would the government regulate 3D printers? Tax them to hell? Ban them completely? Because there's little chance they can enforce any other regulation.
There are many people who devote their entire existence to trying to use law to force you live your life as they see appropriate. They will use all their self righteous motivation, all the existing laws protecting the 2 large political parties, and all of your tax dollars to find a way to answer that question.
The danger of this is that they won't charge you if they think the court will strike down the law on appeal. That is how National Security Letters have survived so long, they drop charges against violators.
If "drawing the foul" is really his plan, then (I'm no expert just speculating) that he would have to be careful of them charging him with an economic crime. Like "not paying taxes on printed firearms" or something, in order to pretend like they are not violating the constitution. Or violating a patent on firearms, or violating Apple's claim on rounded corners, or "terrorism" , or "disturbing the peace" (which I imagine has more severe charges the 3rd time you do it), etc.
...the artificial scarcity of money...
It sounds a lot nicer when you say it that way than when you say "scarcity of counterfeiting".
I've never understood the appeal of museums. They are the most boring place in the world to be dragged to. It's not like you can learn anything or interact with anything there. It's like people are afraid to admit they are boring because they are afraid to appear uncultured. Does anyone honestly enjoy museums?
Regardless of the language, hopefully by 2115 they will stop using variations of the word "own" to mean "defeat".
Perhaps the court needs to expressly rule that the use of technology to gain information about what is going on inside someone's home constitutes a search and requires a warrant. It seems obvious to me that this is a breach of everyone's constitutional rights.
That is absolutely nonsensical. Do eye glasses count as technology? Does sitting in a car and looking out the window count as technology? Subjective laws are never a good thing.
The distinction that everyone seems to be missing is a matter of principle. Would it be legal for someone not working as a LEO to use one of these devices nonconsentually? Probably not, it would probably be considered stalking, voyeurism, etc.
You can filter out stories? Is this a slashdot feature or do you need a plugin? For example, how would I filter out all the global warming (or whatever they renamed it to again) stories?
Sorry to hear that. Hope you find it.
This is how adults resolve things. There were no lawsuits. There were no mass protests. There was a guy who said "Yeah, that picture the algorithm picked? It hurt." And Facebook said "Wow, we can see that would hurt, and we're sorry it did. We will try to do better."
WTF is wrong with this exchange?
The problem is that the web designer's situation should be irrelevant to our evaluation of the choice Facebook made. Sure, it makes it easier for unreasonable people to draw emotional conclusions. What if the web designer was lying, and completely fabricating the complaint? Most people's opinion would change.
If Facebook posted aggregate pictures to their server, then there are 2 questions: do they break any (reasonable) law, and did they do something to upset their customers or users? "My child died of cancer" is not relevant. This is why courtrooms have to throw out "evidence", because only a small percentile of a small percentile of people can actually forcefully ignore such things in their considerations.
Currying was developed to simplify the axioms of Church's lambda calculus. That is about as "low level" as is conceivable. It is not an application level feature. It should NEVER be used in an application programming language.
Just because you can define things in a shitty way doesn't mean you should.
Why though?
Maybe because today isn't the first day everyone has heard of Sony? They have a history of being assholes. They get away with illlegal or should-be-illegal behavior and product characteristics directed at their customers that makes us all hate them. If they weren't protected by an army of lawyers with chains of patents and copyrights, they would be out of business long ago.
And now they "oh, we're just going to show you a little bit of our crappy movie, hurry or you'll miss it!"...pass.
And. Fuck those guys.
I suspect it was more of a popularity stunt by Sony than any actual worry over N.Korea.
There is always profit motive. Always. It's just myopic to define profit only in terms of currency.
Getting a profit of medicinal development is still profit. Getting a profit of money is fine too. Pretending that this is being done without profit because you happen to like the form the profit takes is ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure he was coming down on their artificial monopolies and subsidies. Treatments are worthless if you can't afford them, economics is a reality that morality cannot overcome.
Hmm, actually I may have though of one. Maybe this card will do it?
Has anyone gotten a card that keeps your internet connection running without interruptions and at advertised capacity? I'd also like a card that makes them lower their prices to the level that they would be at if they weren't selling a monopoly utility. Thanks~~
So I'd place my actual learning at about 10% textbook(and I'm being generous), 30% lecture, 20% math tutoring/TA help, 40% internet.
Since I don't know your specific situation, I could be completely misinterpreting what you mean. But it seems you have 0% "figure out the problem".
Math isn't a subject that has to be learned the way foreign language or geography has to be learned. If you don't have something described to you in a book, then you absolutely need another reference to learn most subjects (such as a TA, Lecture, or Internet).
But with math you never need a reference for anything but definitions, and most definitions should be obvious anyway. There is always a first person to solve a math problem, and he had no references.
Like I said, I could be completely misreading your situation, but from what you wrote, it sounds like if there isn't a template for how to solve every single problem type that you give up. If all you know how to do is follow methods and change numbers around here and there, then you aren't learning math.
The greatest instruction anyone can give a person who pursues math is simply to ask a question that they can solve if they try. Many of us who study math seriously love nothing more than to be given a problem that's just barely out of reach.
There is no ambiguity in Matthew 10. It is clearly stating that the violence will be directed against the disciples, not encouraging the disciples promote violence. It is absolutely crystal clear. Just read it for yourself.
The actual fundamentals of christianity are peaceful. It is a 100% peaceful religion. The fact that some people can lie about the writings of christianity doesn't change it into a violent religion. Since when has lying about a subject been acceptable grounds for recharacterizing the subject? Would you apply this same standard to anything else?
And as far as legislation goes, legislation is never peaceful. It is always violently enforced. It was a nation of protestants that wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- that is, preventing legislation. Modern day crusaders who try to enforce their own beliefs through legislation know nothing of christianity.