> Courtney Love, being nothing but an > opportunistic sellout, would certainly see her > fair share of the proceeds if anyone would.
> Read [arancidamoeba.com] the original essay by > Steve Albini that that gold-digging no talent > hussy plagarized during the napster fallout.
> She's nothing but a corporate stooge pretending > to be a revolutionary.
oh come on... I read the essays side by side, and they have some similar points, but there is *no way* that you could say that she plagiarized the original.
Its not like once someone expresses an idea, its blasphemy to express the same idea in your own words. I thought it was quite courageous of courtney love to come forward - in her position - and make such a stand.
And believe me, she has a much greater means to get her message across than Steve Albini (whoever he is)
I can, since there's a 3270 terminal right behind this browser window. You're correct in thinking it's nothing like Unix. I can't tell you what I'd give for basic utilities that I completely took for granted when I worked in Unixland.
hmm. how about running OMVS? Our shop is linux resistant, but IBM has supported this unix clone for a long time.
You can get xterms and everything, just by setting your display variable correctly...
Seems to me that if this is the case, it would have some serious repurcussions on how we currently understand how our bodies work. What is it about our physiologies that makes cancer such an irresitible force?
well, the book genome by Matt Ridley discusses this, as well as the p53 gene. And he has quite a elegant rationale for why this is true, it lies in the basic properties of cell division...
We are composed of cells. Cells, by nature of their history, are good replicators. Hence, cells *want* to replicate.
Now, in order to make a multi-cellular animal, nature had to suppress uncontrolled replication. It hence developed genes that triggered 'cell suicide' in cells that replicated uncontrollably. p53 is such a gene.
Now, cancer is the revolt of individual cells against the 'cell suicide' mechanism that nature has developed. As cells divide, mutations occur. Inevitably, a mutation occurs that overcomes the cell suicide dictum the body imposes on cells replicating uncontrollably. And as a result, cancer occurs.
This is a summary - the actual mechanism is much longer - but it gives the general principle. Cancer is a built-in side effect of mutation. Suppress it better, and my guess is that the body over-enforces cell suicide, and the result is premature aging.
Ed
Re:This raises some frightening questions
on
Battlefield Lasers
·
· Score: 1
> Honestly, I'm not sure that on the battlefield ?> per se this would be terribly effective.
Of course they would, if all the kinks were removed from the laser, the laser was made cheap to fire, and there was a way of automatically targetting objects.
Figure: suppose the laser consisted of a hemisphere - where the laser could be aimed at any point in that hemisphere based on a computer tracking device.
Then, any 'human heat source' within firing range could be instantly killed. Every 100th or so a second, the computer could track external heat sources that looked human and didn't have a 'friendly' tag attached to them, apply a small enough charge to cauterize their aorta or jugular vein, and go on to the next target. No recoil, no aiming necessary. And it really doesn't require that much energy to kill someone..
After all, all warfare is is the application of energy to the right point at the right time. Combine technologies that a) provide instantaneous transfer of energy (lasers) with b) instantaneous calculation of where to aim that energy (computers like the one in the segway) and you've got one hell of a scary world.
And of course the whole process of 'distributed development'. You are silly to think that open source - or its extension, academic research - doesn't innovate, all you are doing is narrowing down the list of what you consider 'innovations'.
Open source makes 'self-assembly' development possible - development from the bottom up.
Note how each gnu package, for instance, is its own component, free to evolve (within reason) but also able to be connected in a chain like tinker toys so people can build large distributions out of it (m4/autoconf/automake/etc for example).
And 'patch' is a wonder in itself - I think in retrospect it will go down as one of the most influential piece of software in history.
Without these interconnections, truly portable software - and distributed development - becomes very difficult.
oh come on.. 'logically' we need to share many of
the genes with them?
Hmm... well there are 20 amino acids in an alphabet of 64 (ie: 4 types of base pair molecules, 3 times over makes a 'letter')
and there are an average of 150-1000 'letters' per
gene.. So there are on a lower bound:
20 ** 150
types of small genes out there. Which is approx
10 ^ 195- ie: an astronomical amount.
So by chance, *no* we don't have to share any genes with them. So evolution's prediction that there will be sharing is very compelling.
Of course you could say that a creator could have been economical and used the same genes over and
over again, but that doesn't explain why the genes we share are not direct facsimiles but only similar to one another, and why the similarities
seem to follow a radiative pattern (why we differ from rats in 2 base pairs in central genes like RNA transcriptase, corn in only 10 base pairs, and
20 base pairs for cyanobacteria.) And of course why certain genes are coopted for use in other areas.
The evidence points very strongly to an evolutionary process. Hell, we've seen the molecular clock in the lab!
What 'flaws' are you talking about? Yes evolution is a theory, but gravitation is a theory too. Do you believe in gravity 'guided by divine plan'? If not, what makes evolution special in this regard?
And how do you prove this 'divine plan'? What would satisfy you that there *is* no divine plan? Or how would you prove that there is?
Ed
Happy Fun Ball!
now all we have to do is get a couple of wise-ass kids to taunt their happy-fun-balls and it will be the end of civilization as we know it...
horos
No way in HELL should this be instituted. If it
applies to individuals, it will eventually apply
to corporations (and hence the military, NSA,
and... Microsoft)
Speaking of which, how the hell would they ever
have brought up the case that they did *without* email? "well your honor.. the email here directly states... objection! that email has gone through its statute of limitations" etc. etc. etc.
I'm not crazy about email staying around forever, but the benefits to freedom far outweigh the disadvantages.
horos
Slashdot Mirror
> Courtney Love, being nothing but an
> opportunistic sellout, would certainly see her
> fair share of the proceeds if anyone would.
> Read [arancidamoeba.com] the original essay by
> Steve Albini that that gold-digging no talent
> hussy plagarized during the napster fallout.
> She's nothing but a corporate stooge pretending
> to be a revolutionary.
oh come on... I read the essays side by side, and they have some similar points, but there is *no way* that you could say that she plagiarized the original.
Its not like once someone expresses an idea, its blasphemy to express the same idea in your own words. I thought it was quite courageous of courtney love to come forward - in her position - and make such a stand.
And believe me, she has a much greater means to get her message across than Steve Albini (whoever he is)
Ed
I can, since there's a 3270 terminal right behind this browser window. You're correct in thinking it's nothing like Unix. I can't tell you what I'd give for basic utilities that I completely took for granted when I worked in Unixland.
hmm. how about running OMVS? Our shop is linux resistant, but IBM has supported this unix clone for a long time.
You can get xterms and everything, just by setting your display variable correctly...
horos
well, the book genome by Matt Ridley discusses this, as well as the p53 gene. And he has quite a elegant rationale for why this is true, it lies in the basic properties of cell division...
We are composed of cells. Cells, by nature of their history, are good replicators. Hence, cells *want* to replicate.
Now, in order to make a multi-cellular animal, nature had to suppress uncontrolled replication. It hence developed genes that triggered 'cell suicide' in cells that replicated uncontrollably. p53 is such a gene.
Now, cancer is the revolt of individual cells against the 'cell suicide' mechanism that nature has developed. As cells divide, mutations occur. Inevitably, a mutation occurs that overcomes the cell suicide dictum the body imposes on cells replicating uncontrollably. And as a result, cancer occurs.
This is a summary - the actual mechanism is much longer - but it gives the general principle. Cancer is a built-in side effect of mutation. Suppress it better, and my guess is that the body over-enforces cell suicide, and the result is premature aging.
Ed
> Honestly, I'm not sure that on the battlefield ?> per se this would be terribly effective.
Of course they would, if all the kinks were removed from the laser, the laser was made cheap to fire, and there was a way of automatically targetting objects.
Figure: suppose the laser consisted of a hemisphere - where the laser could be aimed at any point in that hemisphere based on a computer tracking device.
Then, any 'human heat source' within firing range could be instantly killed. Every 100th or so a second, the computer could track external heat sources that looked human and didn't have a 'friendly' tag attached to them, apply a small enough charge to cauterize their aorta or jugular vein, and go on to the next target. No recoil, no aiming necessary. And it really doesn't require that much energy to kill someone..
After all, all warfare is is the application of energy to the right point at the right time. Combine technologies that a) provide instantaneous transfer of energy (lasers) with b) instantaneous calculation of where to aim that energy (computers like the one in the segway) and you've got one hell of a scary world.
Ed
how about this -
perl
patch
configure
gopher
www/browsers
muds
markup language/links
And of course the whole process of 'distributed development'. You are silly to think that open source - or its extension, academic research - doesn't innovate, all you are doing is narrowing down the list of what you consider 'innovations'. Open source makes 'self-assembly' development possible - development from the bottom up.
Note how each gnu package, for instance, is its own component, free to evolve (within reason) but also able to be connected in a chain like tinker toys so people can build large distributions out of it (m4/autoconf/automake/etc for example). And 'patch' is a wonder in itself - I think in retrospect it will go down as one of the most influential piece of software in history.
Without these interconnections, truly portable software - and distributed development - becomes very difficult.
Ed
oh come on.. 'logically' we need to share many of the genes with them? Hmm... well there are 20 amino acids in an alphabet of 64 (ie: 4 types of base pair molecules, 3 times over makes a 'letter') and there are an average of 150-1000 'letters' per gene.. So there are on a lower bound: 20 ** 150 types of small genes out there. Which is approx 10 ^ 195- ie: an astronomical amount.
So by chance, *no* we don't have to share any genes with them. So evolution's prediction that there will be sharing is very compelling.
Of course you could say that a creator could have been economical and used the same genes over and over again, but that doesn't explain why the genes we share are not direct facsimiles but only similar to one another, and why the similarities seem to follow a radiative pattern (why we differ from rats in 2 base pairs in central genes like RNA transcriptase, corn in only 10 base pairs, and 20 base pairs for cyanobacteria.) And of course why certain genes are coopted for use in other areas.
The evidence points very strongly to an evolutionary process. Hell, we've seen the molecular clock in the lab! What 'flaws' are you talking about? Yes evolution is a theory, but gravitation is a theory too. Do you believe in gravity 'guided by divine plan'? If not, what makes evolution special in this regard? And how do you prove this 'divine plan'? What would satisfy you that there *is* no divine plan? Or how would you prove that there is? Ed
well, I'm not particularly fond of GPL either, but that does not mean I'm fond of BSD.
I think that the way to go is LGPL - it seems a good job of encapsulating the power that the code author has:
It claims that 'if you make changes to a particular piece of code that is LGPL, you have to make *those* changes free when distributed.'
It is not viral like the GPL, but it also doesn't allow thugs like microsoft to 'embrace and extend' it.
horos
Happy Fun Ball! now all we have to do is get a couple of wise-ass kids to taunt their happy-fun-balls and it will be the end of civilization as we know it... horos
No way in HELL should this be instituted. If it applies to individuals, it will eventually apply to corporations (and hence the military, NSA, and... Microsoft) Speaking of which, how the hell would they ever have brought up the case that they did *without* email? "well your honor.. the email here directly states... objection! that email has gone through its statute of limitations" etc. etc. etc. I'm not crazy about email staying around forever, but the benefits to freedom far outweigh the disadvantages. horos