being able to carry a concealed.45 would make me feel a lot safer
...I understand where you're coming from, but I simply don't share your faith in humanity. From my (albeit limited) experience interacting with other people, I've met a significant number of people who are irrational, quick to anger, and who prefer force over reason in settling arguments. I don't believe I'd feel safe if both of us were carrying guns. Think about how many simple assaults, barfights, and shouting matches you see in a given day, week, or year; imagine each participant in said altercation armed with a weapon that can kill as quickly as you can pull a trigger.
I wholeheartedly believe that citizens should be encouraged to own guns--powerful guns, at that--to the end of protecting the nation from external threat, and overthrowing a corrupt regime here at home. I emphatically do not believe that it is right or appropriate for the general population to carry guns as part of their daily routine. We're simply too volatile as a race to be trusted with immediate access to instruments of instant death. We have tempers. We get enraged. We have limits to our patience. We can become overburdened with stress and frustration, to the point where seemingly minor setbacks can cause us to snap.
In the past two years, I've been within one hundred feet of two violent altercations. The participants in these altercations were very clearly intent on causing grevious harm; in the most recent case, four guys were all fighting before they were pulled apart. These people were enraged beyond reason and restraint--they were pretty obviously "seeing red". The fights appeared, to me, to be spontaneous. How, exactly, would having, say, twenty handguns distributed amongst participants and spectators alike have made this situation any better?
Our nation has changed significantly since the 1776. In a place like Manhattan today, you've got about 70,000 people per square mile. Imagine having 70,000 guns in a 1-square-mile area. If even one-one-thousandth of a percent of those people became violently enraged on any given day, you'd be looking at about five violent armed incidents per week per square mile. Given a (very conservative) lethal range of 100 feet, you can expect about 25 armed, innocent bystanders to be placed immediately in harm's way (assuming an evenly distributed populace!) This would simply not be safe, and would fly in the face of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I have faith in humanity, but I'm also keenly aware that we have some pretty glaring flaws, both individually and collectively. We are emotional creatures, and we all have episodes and incidents we've lived to regret. Arming us 'round-the-clock with instruments designed to kill in an instant is a dangerous, dangerous proposal.
The parent poster is, of course, right on the money. History is littered with examples of the apathetic many crushing the dedicated few with relentless barrages of pithy quips and searing too-cool-for-schooledness.
Not voting sends a powerful message to those at the top: that you're not about to play their stupid little game, so they don't really need to worry one whit about what you want.
Oh, and regarding your sig: It's pathetically easy to make enemies. That said, I hope marking me as 'foe' helps complete your day. I like making people happy.
...true, there's little risk of losing your state's EVs, but there is the matter of "winning enough". If the election is close, or if one candidate wins the popular vote while the other wins the EV, you can count on an ugly, protracted, bitter, divisive legal battle in the weeks ahead. We'll be far better off if there's a clear victor in today's election.
If you have a genuine preference for a third party candidate, vote third party. Don't vote for a third party candidate simply because you're undecided on which candidate you prefer. Sadly, there's more to this election than simply winning 270 electoral votes...
When my kid burns her mouth because her pasta was too hot, she gets upset but she's been warned and she knows she should have waited for it to cool, or blow her spoonful to make it colder. She's 6, an age where she now gets replied "you've been warned - make sure it wont happen next time by listening to what we told you"
Good grief, do you understand the difference between an irritated palate and a third-degreeburn? [links go to images of 3rd degree burns--not for the faint of heart]
What would you say about a parent who knowingly and without warning served their daughter pasta that was hot enough to give her a third-degree burn in a matter of seconds? Would you call that responsible parenting? Would you call it child abuse?
What would you say about a restaurant that knowingly and without warning served food that was capable of inflicting a third-degree burn in a matter of seconds?
Is this really the same thing as "Ouch, I burned the roof of my mouth!" to you? Is the concept of "degrees of severity" foreign to you?
He is wrong. Intelligence is not about speed. I have met people who are very very smart, but they think very slowly. You ask questions, and the I too knows (ITKs) will blurt out an answer so damn fast, but mr smarty pant will think and think, and you would think they are clueless, but when they final answer, you can't tear apart their answer.
That's because it takes no time at all to answer a question, whether you're a man or a machine. To provide an accurate or informed answer, though, takes time. It takes time, because it takes thought--and faster thought means faster answers. While it may seem that the intelligent man is thinking slowly, his mind is likely racing--testing hypotheses, finding logic holes, computing results, and building a rock-solid answer.
In this respect, intelligence is about speed--if it takes a man twenty seconds of thought to give an accurate answer the question, "Which of these three objects is round?", he's not likely to be considered terribly intelligent--despite the fact that his answer is accurate and informed. True, intelligence is not about speed alone, but speed is unquestionably a factor. The faster we can think, the better. Consider that had his mind been even faster, "Fermat's Last Theorem" could have been "Fermat's Greatest Proof".
We have a lot of work to do in the realm of AI research, but every last tick of speed helps. Even at that, there are limits to what we can achieve with algorithms; at some point, it's going to be a matter of "is the computer fast enough to perform full object recognition in real time?"
Intelligence is about many things. Speed is one of these things.
Democrats use the courts to pass policies they know they could never be elected by supporting. So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats.
Civil rights was rammed down America's throat, too. It wasn't the executive or legislative branch paving the way--it was the judicial branch. Without those "activist judges" going against the mainstream American values of the day, there's a very real chance that you'd see a "whites only" sign hanging in the window of your local Starbucks. Which was right--the judgement of the activist courts, or the will of the American mainstream?
This kind of thing is exactly why we have a judicial branch. Fundamental human rights aren't open to debate on the grounds of "what the majority is comfortable with". The founders were keenly aware of the "tyrrany of the majority", and they went to great lengths to keep the majority from trampling the rights of the minority. One of these safeguards is the judicial branch of the federal government.
Over the years, the American mainstream has maintained that blacks are worth 3/5 of a human being, that women are property, that the Irish are a race of sub-humans, that it is perfectly appropriate to sell and purchase human beings, that marrying an individual of the wrong race was a capital offense, and that Indians either needed to move out of our way or be killed. Today, the American mainstream believes that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry those they love--or even enter into civil unions, for that matter. Occasionally, the Legislature or the Executive will take it upon themselves to right these wrongs. In most cases, though, it's the Judicial branch that steps in and upholds the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Be thankful that our highest court is not subject to the whim and fancy of American mainstream thought.
Yeah, I've yet to witness one myself. Shame--Brewers' Art is good stuff.
Professional pickpockets are damn good at what they do. We'd wear money belts on a daily basis when travelling overseas--when worn down the front of your pants, they're hard enough to get at that the pickpockets won't even bother with you.
You're right--it is all about blending in. Way back when, we met and talked with an old Scot one night at our local haunt in Paris. He was part of a group visiting for the Rugby World Cup, and mentioned how three of the ladies in their group had their purses picked whilst visiting Notre Dame that day, and that he couldn't figure out why they'd had such bad luck. We sympathized with him but had to surpress a bit of a grin--as he (and many of his compatriots) were decked out in kilts, caps, and face paint...
The best "self-defense means" when you are surrounded by a hundred million people of some other culture is to avoid dangerous places and figure out some way to get along with the folks around you.
...unless, of course, you happen to bump into Bruce Sterling.
You're spot-on, though. An open eye, a well-guarded money-belt, and a careful itinerary are your best defenses overseas. Shockingly enough, the vast minority of the world's population wants to attack tourists.
(I don't know whether or not Baltimore qualifies as a foreign land, but the missus and I would be happy to act as local guides next time you're in town. We know where the good beer is...)
...I didn't say anything about CSM. I haven't looked into CSM deeply enough to form a good opinion on them, though what I have heard has been largely complimentary.
I do take issue with Mr. Francis' shoddy work. That article was poorly written and sensationalistic, and provided no cited support for its most shocking claim.
David R. Francis, you're a hack. You shouldn't even be writing for a weekly coupon clipper.
Even a sub-par human mind would have trouble accepting this tripe as truth. Consider the following statement:
Not everybody agrees programmers will disappear completely.
That's simply insipid. It's akin to saying, "Not everybody agrees that Dick Cheney sticks rodents up Dubya's ass" or "Not everybody agrees that Linus Torvalds secretly plans to incorporate stolen code in his operating system." This sort of statement is right at the top of the list of ways to lend creedence to a completely baseless notion.
Mr. Francis, you do not name a single expert who believes that American programmers will cease to exist in next few years. If I were feeling generous, I'd simply state that you're a mind-bogglingly lazy journalist who cannot be bothered to include one shred of evidence supporting your most alarming charge. As I'm ticked off, however, I'll say that you're lying through your fucking teeth, that you didn't speak to or read of a single expert who believes that American programmers will be extinct in a matter of years, and you just wanted something sensational and outlandish to jazz up a less-than-mediocre piece on the state of computer jobs in America.
David R. Francis, you're a hack.
Re:Learn to write?
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Don't think of it as loaded with grammatical errors. Think of it as Compiled with (0) errors, (472) warnings...
First off, thank you for taking our questions; my wife and I are both big fans of your work. The Baroque Cycle is our bedtime reading material du jour, and we're eagerly awaiting your next book.
The endings of your book always seem to strike rather suddenly--once a resolution has been reached, your books simply stop. Setting aside whatever opinions people have about your distinct closing style, could you give us a bit of a glimpse into how you craft the endings of your books? Do you put a lot of work and thought into the final chapter of a book, or does it simply reach a point where you stand up and say, "there, it's done"?
No, I'm not joking, and note that I said user, not administrator. Is it a security risk when a user cannot directly access RAM?
Say your operating system didn't let you choose a custom desktop image--you had to use what you were given. It's a restriction of choice, to be sure, but how is it a security risk?
A part of your security is having control over your computer. Your security has been compromised when you lose that control.
...by this logic, an operating system that does not permit a user to dive directly to an arbitrary RAM address and twiddle bits is an operating system that poses a security risk, as you've lost the control to directly manipulate your machine's memory.
It would add penalties of up to five years in prison for people convicted of installing such programs without a computer user's permission.
If this is really the case, this law isn't going to do a damn thing--all it means is that spyware developers will need to put a sufficiently dense bunch of legalease on page eight of the EULA. (It was noted somewhere--NPR, I think--that the typical EULA is measurably longer than the Constitution of the United States...)
"From time to time, Awesomeness2004!!! Pro may gather usage statistics and other information and transmit this information to the ShadyCorp central server."
"By clicking 'I Agree', you grant ShadyCorp permission to install Awesomeness2004!!! Pro. To take advantage of certain advanced features, Awesomeness 2004!!! Pro requires SnifferExeDllBuddy. SnifferExeDllBuddy may track and report usage statistics and other information."
"ShadyCorps is concerned about your privacy. Your personal information will only be made available to ShadyCorp and approved ShadyCorp partners."
Forget teeth--this law'll be lucky if it can manage to gum hungrily at the bastards' ankles. How about a law that renders post-POS EULAs null and void?
the term "immune" suggests that they can't be infected by HIV because their immune system recognizes and destroys the virus
...or, the virus enters their system and is simply incapable of infecting cells for some reason. The HIV virus would still be there, but it'd be innocuous.
Re:Agree with the idea
on
The Long Tail
·
· Score: 1
servicing a niche can be very profitable
...ironically, that also happens to be the gist of the world's oldest profession...
That's just it, though--not only is it a matter of "if you can afford the initial investment", it's also a matter of "are you going to be in said house long enough for it to pay off", as well. I'd love to install solar cells on our house, but I'm already stretched just trying to get the damned walls patched and painted. Current technology simply isn't within the realm of reason yet for most of us. It will be someday. Coule that with the fact that we don't know where we're going to end up in eight years, and it simply isn't practical yet.
By "washing machine-sized", I'm thinking about the appliance end of it, not the solar collection end--sorry, didn't make that clear. $8000 for collection, generation and storage--where generation and storage can sit comfortably alongside your air conditioner's condenser.
It's entirely a practical matter. I want cheap solar. I don't enjoy paying for electricity. It just isn't there yet, and until it is, we need to shape our energy policy accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
I wholeheartedly believe that citizens should be encouraged to own guns--powerful guns, at that--to the end of protecting the nation from external threat, and overthrowing a corrupt regime here at home. I emphatically do not believe that it is right or appropriate for the general population to carry guns as part of their daily routine. We're simply too volatile as a race to be trusted with immediate access to instruments of instant death. We have tempers. We get enraged. We have limits to our patience. We can become overburdened with stress and frustration, to the point where seemingly minor setbacks can cause us to snap.
In the past two years, I've been within one hundred feet of two violent altercations. The participants in these altercations were very clearly intent on causing grevious harm; in the most recent case, four guys were all fighting before they were pulled apart. These people were enraged beyond reason and restraint--they were pretty obviously "seeing red". The fights appeared, to me, to be spontaneous. How, exactly, would having, say, twenty handguns distributed amongst participants and spectators alike have made this situation any better?
Our nation has changed significantly since the 1776. In a place like Manhattan today, you've got about 70,000 people per square mile. Imagine having 70,000 guns in a 1-square-mile area. If even one-one-thousandth of a percent of those people became violently enraged on any given day, you'd be looking at about five violent armed incidents per week per square mile. Given a (very conservative) lethal range of 100 feet, you can expect about 25 armed, innocent bystanders to be placed immediately in harm's way (assuming an evenly distributed populace!) This would simply not be safe, and would fly in the face of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I have faith in humanity, but I'm also keenly aware that we have some pretty glaring flaws, both individually and collectively. We are emotional creatures, and we all have episodes and incidents we've lived to regret. Arming us 'round-the-clock with instruments designed to kill in an instant is a dangerous, dangerous proposal.
Not voting sends a powerful message to those at the top: that you're not about to play their stupid little game, so they don't really need to worry one whit about what you want.
Oh, and regarding your sig: It's pathetically easy to make enemies. That said, I hope marking me as 'foe' helps complete your day. I like making people happy.
I forget. Which one of these is the Badnarik/Campagna slogan, again?
If you have a genuine preference for a third party candidate, vote third party. Don't vote for a third party candidate simply because you're undecided on which candidate you prefer. Sadly, there's more to this election than simply winning 270 electoral votes...
True enough. If only I had known this as a ten-year-old...
Good grief, do you understand the difference between an irritated palate and a third-degree burn? [links go to images of 3rd degree burns--not for the faint of heart]
What would you say about a parent who knowingly and without warning served their daughter pasta that was hot enough to give her a third-degree burn in a matter of seconds? Would you call that responsible parenting? Would you call it child abuse?
What would you say about a restaurant that knowingly and without warning served food that was capable of inflicting a third-degree burn in a matter of seconds?
Is this really the same thing as "Ouch, I burned the roof of my mouth!" to you? Is the concept of "degrees of severity" foreign to you?
You were lucky.
Mine had a habit of turning "Combat", "River Raid", and "Pitfall!" into "Vertical Lines and Shrill Tone". That game sucked.
Good times.
Step 45,328:
There is no step 45,328. There is no step 45,328...*soft weeping sounds*
That's because it takes no time at all to answer a question, whether you're a man or a machine. To provide an accurate or informed answer, though, takes time. It takes time, because it takes thought--and faster thought means faster answers. While it may seem that the intelligent man is thinking slowly, his mind is likely racing--testing hypotheses, finding logic holes, computing results, and building a rock-solid answer.
In this respect, intelligence is about speed--if it takes a man twenty seconds of thought to give an accurate answer the question, "Which of these three objects is round?", he's not likely to be considered terribly intelligent--despite the fact that his answer is accurate and informed. True, intelligence is not about speed alone, but speed is unquestionably a factor. The faster we can think, the better. Consider that had his mind been even faster, "Fermat's Last Theorem" could have been "Fermat's Greatest Proof".
We have a lot of work to do in the realm of AI research, but every last tick of speed helps. Even at that, there are limits to what we can achieve with algorithms; at some point, it's going to be a matter of "is the computer fast enough to perform full object recognition in real time?"
Intelligence is about many things. Speed is one of these things.
Do you ever get the feeling that our country has been through this kind of thing before?
Civil rights was rammed down America's throat, too. It wasn't the executive or legislative branch paving the way--it was the judicial branch. Without those "activist judges" going against the mainstream American values of the day, there's a very real chance that you'd see a "whites only" sign hanging in the window of your local Starbucks. Which was right--the judgement of the activist courts, or the will of the American mainstream?
This kind of thing is exactly why we have a judicial branch. Fundamental human rights aren't open to debate on the grounds of "what the majority is comfortable with". The founders were keenly aware of the "tyrrany of the majority", and they went to great lengths to keep the majority from trampling the rights of the minority. One of these safeguards is the judicial branch of the federal government.
Over the years, the American mainstream has maintained that blacks are worth 3/5 of a human being, that women are property, that the Irish are a race of sub-humans, that it is perfectly appropriate to sell and purchase human beings, that marrying an individual of the wrong race was a capital offense, and that Indians either needed to move out of our way or be killed. Today, the American mainstream believes that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry those they love--or even enter into civil unions, for that matter. Occasionally, the Legislature or the Executive will take it upon themselves to right these wrongs. In most cases, though, it's the Judicial branch that steps in and upholds the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Be thankful that our highest court is not subject to the whim and fancy of American mainstream thought.
Professional pickpockets are damn good at what they do. We'd wear money belts on a daily basis when travelling overseas--when worn down the front of your pants, they're hard enough to get at that the pickpockets won't even bother with you.
You're right--it is all about blending in. Way back when, we met and talked with an old Scot one night at our local haunt in Paris. He was part of a group visiting for the Rugby World Cup, and mentioned how three of the ladies in their group had their purses picked whilst visiting Notre Dame that day, and that he couldn't figure out why they'd had such bad luck. We sympathized with him but had to surpress a bit of a grin--as he (and many of his compatriots) were decked out in kilts, caps, and face paint...
You're spot-on, though. An open eye, a well-guarded money-belt, and a careful itinerary are your best defenses overseas. Shockingly enough, the vast minority of the world's population wants to attack tourists.
(I don't know whether or not Baltimore qualifies as a foreign land, but the missus and I would be happy to act as local guides next time you're in town. We know where the good beer is...)
I do take issue with Mr. Francis' shoddy work. That article was poorly written and sensationalistic, and provided no cited support for its most shocking claim.
Even a sub-par human mind would have trouble accepting this tripe as truth. Consider the following statement:
Not everybody agrees programmers will disappear completely.
That's simply insipid. It's akin to saying, "Not everybody agrees that Dick Cheney sticks rodents up Dubya's ass" or "Not everybody agrees that Linus Torvalds secretly plans to incorporate stolen code in his operating system." This sort of statement is right at the top of the list of ways to lend creedence to a completely baseless notion.
Mr. Francis, you do not name a single expert who believes that American programmers will cease to exist in next few years. If I were feeling generous, I'd simply state that you're a mind-bogglingly lazy journalist who cannot be bothered to include one shred of evidence supporting your most alarming charge. As I'm ticked off, however, I'll say that you're lying through your fucking teeth, that you didn't speak to or read of a single expert who believes that American programmers will be extinct in a matter of years, and you just wanted something sensational and outlandish to jazz up a less-than-mediocre piece on the state of computer jobs in America.
David R. Francis, you're a hack.
Don't think of it as loaded with grammatical errors. Think of it as Compiled with (0) errors, (472) warnings ...
That sounds like it should be some Adams-esque race of semi-competent space pirates...
(P.S. Apologies for the false dichotomy. Feel free to present other possible answers, as well...)
First off, thank you for taking our questions; my wife and I are both big fans of your work. The Baroque Cycle is our bedtime reading material du jour, and we're eagerly awaiting your next book.
The endings of your book always seem to strike rather suddenly--once a resolution has been reached, your books simply stop. Setting aside whatever opinions people have about your distinct closing style, could you give us a bit of a glimpse into how you craft the endings of your books? Do you put a lot of work and thought into the final chapter of a book, or does it simply reach a point where you stand up and say, "there, it's done"?
1886, that is.
Say your operating system didn't let you choose a custom desktop image--you had to use what you were given. It's a restriction of choice, to be sure, but how is it a security risk?
It would add penalties of up to five years in prison for people convicted of installing such programs without a computer user's permission.
If this is really the case, this law isn't going to do a damn thing--all it means is that spyware developers will need to put a sufficiently dense bunch of legalease on page eight of the EULA. (It was noted somewhere--NPR, I think--that the typical EULA is measurably longer than the Constitution of the United States...)
"From time to time, Awesomeness2004!!! Pro may gather usage statistics and other information and transmit this information to the ShadyCorp central server."
"By clicking 'I Agree', you grant ShadyCorp permission to install Awesomeness2004!!! Pro. To take advantage of certain advanced features, Awesomeness 2004!!! Pro requires SnifferExeDllBuddy. SnifferExeDllBuddy may track and report usage statistics and other information."
"ShadyCorps is concerned about your privacy. Your personal information will only be made available to ShadyCorp and approved ShadyCorp partners."
Forget teeth--this law'll be lucky if it can manage to gum hungrily at the bastards' ankles. How about a law that renders post-POS EULAs null and void?
By "washing machine-sized", I'm thinking about the appliance end of it, not the solar collection end--sorry, didn't make that clear. $8000 for collection, generation and storage--where generation and storage can sit comfortably alongside your air conditioner's condenser.
It's entirely a practical matter. I want cheap solar. I don't enjoy paying for electricity. It just isn't there yet, and until it is, we need to shape our energy policy accordingly.